Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading there-of, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Hartlepool Gas and Water Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).

West Ham Corporation Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).

River Lee (Flood Relief, etc.) Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension, etc.) Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).

Bills to be read a Second time.

Private Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Argyll Trust Estate Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Brixham Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

COLONIAL STOCK ACT, 1900.

Copy ordered,
of Treasury List of Colonial Stocks in respect of which the provisions of the Act are for the time being complied with."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

BARRACK WARDENS.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether barrack wardens have been recently informed that they are no longer to occupy married quarters, as they are required for troops; and whether it is the custom for barrack wardens to have Government married quarters, and what steps he is taking in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): As regards the first part of the question, it was notified, after full consideration, in 1928, on the occasion of a review of their pay and conditions of service, that it was not regarded as essential that barrack wardens should occupy public quarters. As regards the remainder of the question, a certain number of barrack wardens are in occupation of Government quarters. Such occupation is not disturbed unless the shortage of quarters for troops entitled thereto is in the opinion of the General Officer Commanding so acute as to call for the surrender of any quarters occupied by barrack wardens.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what action he intends to take in future on this question of barrack wardens' accommodation, and in special reference to the shortage of married quarters at Aldershot and Woolwich?

Mr. MUFF: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there has been an increase of surrenders during the past year, and whether there were any evictions during the tenure of office of the late Secretary of State for War?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer for a former Secretary for War.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the circumstances in which, on the 3rd May last, he instituted proceedings in the Woolwich County Court against Mr. Frederick Sheppard, a barrack warden, for possession of premises at the Royal Artillery Barracks, Woolwich; whether he can state the length of service of Mr. Sheppard; and whether, seeing that he gave up private quarters in order to occupy the public quarters that had been allotted to him and is liable to be ordered away at any time to serve in some other station, he proposes, under these circumstances, to evict Mr. Sheppard and his family?

Mr. SHAW: As the military quarters in the occupation of this barrack warden, who is a civilian employé, were required for soldiers on the married quarters roll, he was warned in December, 1928, that in another twelve months he would be given notice to vacate public quarters. Formal notice to quit was given in February, 1930, and as he did not vacate the quarters, proceedings were instituted in May of this year to recover possession. Mr. Sheppard's appointment as a barrack warden dates from December, 1924. As regards the last part of the question, the facts stated would not justify me in authorising his continued occupation of public quarters to the exclusion of the military personnel for whom they are required.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter came before the county court judge, who was so impressed with the circumstances of this man that he said the Secretary of State ought to consider the matter again? Is he prepared to do so?

Mr. SHAW: I am not aware of the circumstances stated by the right hon. Gentleman. I have given the answer to the question that he has put, and if he will put another question on the Paper I will give him an answer to that.

Sir K. WOOD: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose that this man should do?

Mr. SHAW: This man has had 18 months' notice to terminate the occupation of these quarters—notice that was given to him by my predecessor. With the best will in the world, I cannot spend all my time abolishing the decisions of my predecessors.

Mr. MUFF: Is this a new policy or simply the policy carried out by the late Government?

Mr. SHAW: This is no new policy, and, as a matter of fact, the actions taken in the year preceding the present year were 20 per cent. higher than during the present year.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman always going to shelter himself behind the actions of his predecessors?

SOLDIERS (PRIVATE ENGAGEMENTS).

Mr. DAY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers serving in the Guards are still granted the privilege of being employed at evening and matinee performances at London theatres; can he say whether for the purpose of these engagements soldiers are excused any part of their military duties; is permission also granted to Guardsmen to be absent from their military duties for rehearsals; have any inquiries been made into this subject; and can he give the House particulars?

Mr. SHAW: As regards the first and last parts of the question, soldiers, whether belonging to the Guards or to other regiments, are at liberty to spend their leisure time as they like provided that there is no interference with their military duties. Instructions were issued last autumn to make the position clear in this respect and to make it clear also that any engagements which soldiers accept in their spare time are purely of a private nature and that touting for engagements in any shape or form is forbidden. As regards the second and third parts of the question, the answer is in the negative.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the fact that these soldiers attend rehearsals in the morning, performances at matinees in the afternoon, and appear again at night, does not interfere with their military duty?

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman not say that this is what his predecessor did?

Mr. SHAW: If my hon. Friend will give me details of cases where it is evident that soldiers have been taking private engagements at the expense of their military duties, I will take steps to deal with the matter.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is not what was stated impossible? If they took private engagements at the expense of their military duties they would be brought before their Commanding Officer, who would punish them.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that if they take private engagements at the expense of ex-service men it is not helping the unemployed?

MILITARY CAMPS (MILK SUPPLY).

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the following information with regard to the milk supplied to the Territorial units which camped at Kinmel Park and Voryd, near Rhyl, in the county of Flint, from 8th June last up to the end of the month, namely, whether any of the milk supplied to the officers' mess and to the sergeants and privates, respectively, was foreign tinned milk; if so, what was the proportion of such milk to the whole of the milk supplied in each case; and whether any of the milk was obtained from local farmers, and, if so, the approximate proportion in each case?

Mr. SHAW: The supply of milk to Territorial units in camp is a matter for the officer commanding to arrange. It will therefore be necessary to call for reports from some dozen units to obtain the information for which the question asks, but if the hon. Member will let me know if he wishes this done I will have the necessary instructions given and communicate with him when the reports are received.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greater part of the milk supplied to the soldiers was foreign milk, and that this occurred in an important agricultural district in which at the present time there is a great glut of milk?

Mr. SHAW: I am not aware of those facts. I have given the information that I have, and, if the hon. Member desires the collection of the information for which he now asks, which will be a matter of considerable work, I will try to get it.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a matter of considerable importance to the farming community in this district?

SOLDIERS' FAMILIES (MEDICAL SERVICE).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War what are the arrangements in force for providing medical attention for the families of officers and men serving in the Army?

Mr. SHAW: As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman include the provision of medical service for the families of those serving overseas?

Mr. SHAW: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my answer, which will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I think it will give him the information that he desires, but, if it does not, information is always at his disposal if he asks for it.

Following is the answer:

The families of officers and soldiers on the married quarters roll are afforded medical attendance as a privilege so far as facilities are available from a military source. At practically all military stations there is a military medical officer or employed civilian medical practitioner whose duties include medical attendance on officers' and soldiers' families. If unfit to attend the medical inspection room, families on the married quarters roll may be attended in their quarters provided they reside within a radius of one mile from a point fixed by the General Officer Commanding (usually the medical inspection room). At certain stations where the strength of the garrison is large in comparison with the civil population, there is a military families hospital to which the families of soldiers on the married quarters roll may be admitted.
At stations where there is no military families hospital a member of the family of a soldier on the married quarters roll may, in special circumstances, be admitted to a civil hospital at the cost of Army funds.

Hospital accommodation is not provided for the families of officers, but the families of officers in the Salisbury Plain Area and at Ismailia, where the local conditions are exceptional, may be admitted to the local military families hospital on payment of the usual hospital charges, provided accommodation is available. At Aldershot, a wing has been added to the military families hospital at the cost of local charitable funds for the accommodation of the families of officers in that Command. The charges for admission to this wing are fixed by the local committee and all additional expense in connection with the wing is borne by the committee. Families of soldiers not on the married quarters roll may also have such facilities as are available, but they cannot be visited at their residences by a medical officer. They may, under the special authority of the General Officer Commanding, be admitted to a military hospital on payment of 1s. a day.

TERRITORIAL BANDS (POLITICAL MEETINGS).

Mr. MATHERS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the appearance of a Territorial Army band at a Conservative party gathering at Corstorphine on 21st June; and whether he proposes to take any action to prevent the recurrence of such a breach of regulations?

Mr. SHAW: I have received a report on this case from which it appears that the engagement was accepted in the belief that it was for a garden and musical fete, and not for a political gathering. The Regulations for the Territorial Army clearly lay down that bands are not permitted to play at political demonstrations and this isolated and unintentional departure from them does not suggest that any special steps are necessary to secure their observance. I hope that the publicity given to this matter by the question and answer will prevent any such mistake in future.

Mr. MATHERS: If I show the right hon. Gentleman that this particular engagement, in which this band was involved,
was advertised a week before the event took place, and that the advertisement in the "Edinburgh Evening News was headed" Corstorphine Unionist Association," will he take action?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better send the Minister the information which he has.

Major COLVILLE: Will the Government show the same zeal for regulations that will prevent the use of Service aircraft by Cabinet Ministers?

BRITISH TROOPS, EGYPT.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES (for Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE): 4.
asked the Secretary of State for War what British troops are stationed in Egypt and at what places; and what was the strength a year ago by comparison with the present time?

Mr. SHAW: The regimental establishment of the British troops in Egypt, as given on page 29 of Army Estimates, consists of three cavalry regiments, six batteries of artillery, six infantry battalions and ancillary troops. There has been no change in the number of these units since last year. The actual strength of the troops in Egypt on 1st June this year was approximately 9,800, compared with 9,600 on 1st June, 1929. The troops are stationed at Cairo, Ismailia, Alexandria and Port Said.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ISLAND OF LEWIS (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. MACPHERSON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received a resolution passed by the reconstituted county council of Ross and Cromarty urging that steps should be taken to separate for all administrative purposes the island of Lewis from the mainland part of the county; and what action he proposes to take?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. To give effect to the desire of the county council would require legislation, and until experience has been gained of the result of the administrative changes effected by the Local
Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, consideration of the county council's proposal would be premature.

Mr. RAMSAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider the demand put forward by the people of Lewis for as large a delegation as possible of health and highway services from the county council of Ross and Cromarty?

Mr. ADAMSON: These are matters which I have already considered.

ST. KILDA (EVACUATION).

Mr. RAMSAY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to say when, and where, the present inhabitants of St. Kilda are to be settled in their new surroundings, and the nature of the employment found for them?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. Johnston): I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made yesterday on this matter in the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Health.

Mr. RAMSAY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to state how the expenses connected with the evacuation of St. Kilda are to be met; and how far the Government is prepared to meet the said costs?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The matter is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

EDUCATION.

Mr. BARR: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will furnish figures showing for 1928–29 the number of children leaving primary schools, and the number and percentage of these proceeding to some form of full-time education; and the percentage of primary school children who eventually proceed to universities?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The total number of pupils leaving primary schools, i.e., schools conducted under the Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1923, during the year 1928–29 was 90,025, of whom 21,143 or 23.5 per cent. were transferred to secondary schools. If pupils leaving the primary departments of schools conducted under the Secondary Schools (Scotland) Regulations, 1923, are included the figures are 103,129, 31,599
and 30.6, respectively. I regret that I have no information as to the number proceeding to other forms of full-time education, or as to the percentage of primary school children who eventually proceed to universities.

SEWAGE PURIFICATION.

Mr. TRAIN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland have adopted the sewage purification system; and how many local authorities are still without a system whereby rivers and streams are polluted?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am having certain returns in ate possession of the Department of Health for Scotland examined with a view, if possible, to furnishing the hon. Member with the particulars he desires, and I hope to be in a position to communicate with him upon the matter at an early date.

RIVERS POLLUTION COMMITTEE.

Mr. TRAIN: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the Rivers Pollution Committee may be expected?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am informed that the Department of Health for Scotland expect shortly to receive the report on the River Tweed by the Advisory Committee on Rivers Pollution Prevention, and that the committee's report on the River Esk is in course of preparation.

Mr. TRAIN: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise, in the light of yesterday's debate, that this is a very important matter; and will he do what he can to have this report as speedily as possible?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes, Sir.

SCHOOL CHILDREN (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).

Mr. TRAIN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the annual cost to local authorities of providing travelling facilities for school children?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: Travelling facilities for school children are provided by education authorities under section 4 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, or under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, as amended by paragraph 5 (a) of the
Fifth Schedule of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, and section 4 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1925. The powers of education authorities under these sections of the Acts are not limited to the provision of travelling expenses and I regret that the available statistics do not enable me to separate the expenditure on this service from the related expenditure incurred under the same sections of the Acts referred to.

Mr. TRAIN: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get some particulars on this score. The question merely asks what is the cost of these travelling facilities. I am not doubting that it is in order—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. MARCUS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the hardship caused to applicants for old age pensions in Scotland who, in cases of doubt, are obliged to produce their birth certificates in support of their claims and to pay fees for searching the registers or for extracts of certificates of birth; and whether he will take steps entirely to exempt such applicants from payment of fees?

Mr. JOHNSTON: While birth certificates already in the possession of claimants have been produced in support of the majority of the claims submitted to the Department of Health for Scotland for consideration under the Contributory Pensions Acts, and while applicants are asked to submit certificates to facilitate the investigation of their cases, they are under no obligation to do so and are not required to obtain duplicate certificates for the purpose. As regards the latter part of the question, it is in fact the Department's practice to arrange, free of cost to the applicant, for a search to be made in the available records for verification of the date of birth where satisfactory evidence has not been submitted with the claim. It is estimated that this course has been taken in about 25 per cent. of the cases in question.

HOUSING (DUNDEE).

Mr. MARCUS: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of petitions for ejection of tenants of
working-class houses brought before the Dundee sheriff court during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1929; how many petitions were granted; and how many tenants were actually ejected?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: In the summary removing court the number of new actions raised during the period in question was 238 and the number of cases called in the Continued Roll was 176. The number of warrants of ejection granted was 98. In the ordinary sheriff court 21 actions of removal or ejection were initiated, and 17 decrees were granted. The actual number of ejections, according to figures obtained by the sheriff clerk, was 32.

Mr. MARCUS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of inhabited houses in Dundee which have been condemned by the sanitary authority as unfit for human habitation; and if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent rent being charged for such houses in Dundee and elsewhere in Scotland?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am informed that there are in Dundee 651 inhabited houses which have been condemned by the local authority as unfit for human habitation. The local authority are actively engaged in the erection of 300 houses and are in course of taking tenders for the erection of 306 more, making a total of 606 houses for the tenants to be displaced. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have introduced a Bill for the better and speedier provision of alternative accommodation, but my right hon. Friend can meantime give no undertaking as to further legislation.

HERRING FISHERY (AIRCRAFT).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Fishery Board for Scotland are proposing to initiate further experiments for the location of herring shoals by means of spotting from aircraft?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The experiments carried out some years ago did not give very promising results; but I propose to consult my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air as to the possibility of carrying out further experiments.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this system has proved so successful in Iceland that a
flying boat is attached to the herring fleet; and will he get a report from our Consul-General in Iceland on the matter?

Mr. ADAMSON: I will keep that information in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (POSTERS).

Mr. LEIF JONES: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can state the total expenditure on posters and the displaying of them by the Empire Marketing Board for the year 1929; whether he has any evidence as to the advertising value of these posters; and whether he will take advice from the heads of private advertising firms who are not represented on the Empire Marketing Board?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The total expenditure from the Empire Marketing Fund on posters and on their display during the financial year 1929 brought to account to date is £62,996 11s. 4d. In regard to the advertising value of these posters, I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks on the 12th February last. In reply to the last part of the question, the Board are advised in this as in other publicity questions by a representative committee specially appointed for the purpose. I need hardly add, however, that they are always open to receive suggestions for the improvement of their work.

Mr. JONES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that these posters are constantly diminishing in value as time goes on?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, and that is why we continually substitute them by others.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the £62,000 spent on posters display has been spent only on displays in Great Britain or also on displays in the Colonies?

Mr. THOMAS: Mainly in Great Britain.

Mr. SKELTON: Are we right in thinking that the President of the Board of Education has been called in for purposes of display?

Mr. LAMBERT: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs why, in an advertisement issued by the Empire Marketing Board exhorting Empire purchases and extolling Australian and New Zealand butter, Devonshire butter has been omitted; and, in view of the recognised quality of Devonshire butter, will he draw the attention of those responsible for the advertisements of the Empire Marketing Board to the desirability of giving equal prominence to home produce?

Mr. THOMAS: The advertisement referred to by the right hon. Member is one of a series dealing in turn with selected commodities from various parts of the Empire, designed to illustrate the Empire Marketing Board's general theme of Empire buying. A special advertisement, dealing exclusively with various kinds of home produce, is due to appear in this series immediately.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress on the Board that had it not been for the men from Devonshire, there would have been no Empire produce to advertise?

Mr. THOMAS: And perhaps to keep in mind also that there are such places as Derbyshire.

Mr. TINNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Empire Marketing Board that the Irish Free State also produces butter?

CANADIAN WHEAT AND BRITISH PRODUCTS (EXCHANGE).

Mr. LAMBERT: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether during his visit to Canada last year he discussed with the Canadian Government the establishment of a British import board to control the purchase of oversea imports of wheat into Great Britain; and, if so, what decision was arrived at?

Mr. THOMAS: The nature of my discussion in Canada was indicated in a reply which I gave on the 25th February last to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery). I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a copy.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is there any truth in the suggestion that any action of the right hon. Gentleman induced the Canadian Wheat Pool to hold up wheat in the last season?

Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary, I took the view that when wheat was at one dollar forty cents, it was a bit too high.

MUNITIONS (EXPORTS TO AFGHANISTAN).

Mr. AYLES: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantities of armaments and munitions of war exported from this country into Afghanistan during 1927, 1928, and 1929?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): During the year 1928, 3,363 military rifles and carbines, six sporting guns and. 10,000 loaded sporting cartridges were exported from the United Kingdom, registered as consigned to Afghanistan. No consignments were registered during 1927 and 1929.

ROOFING SLATES (IMPORTS).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the weight and value of roofing slates imported during the quarters ended March, June, September, and December, 1929, and March and June, 1930?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I will circulate the requisite table of figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

Total weight and declared value of slates for roofing registered as imported into Great Britain and Northern. Ireland during each of the undermentioned periods:



Weight.
Declared Value.


1929.
Tons.
£


January-March
9,837
65,237


April-June
13,774
86,480


July-September
14,506
92,063


October-December
9,729
61,129


1930.




January-March
10,070
65,563


April-June
12,073
75,474

RUSSIAN TIMBER IMPORTS (PRISON LABOUR).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now satisfied, after examination of certain documents which have been submitted to him, that Russian timber being imported into this country is produced by convict labour?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The documents submitted by the right hon. Member lend
support to the allegations which have been made in the House that some forced labour, including that of prisoners, is employed in the timber industry in the Soviet Union.

Mr. HACKING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take action under the powers that he possesses under the Foreign (Prison Made) Goods Act, so that this timber may be kept out of this country?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is precisely the problem. I should doubt whether this, in fact, comes under that Act, which of course relates to penetentiaries, houses of correction and prisons, but my view at the moment is that it is not covered by that Act.

Mr. HACKING: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that this timber is made up by convict labour?

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Is the matter still under consideration, or has the right hon. Gentleman come to a definite decision with regard to it?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not clear what decision the hon. Member means. If it is a decision to prohibit importation, then there is no suggestion to that effect at this time.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Law Officers of the Crown on this question?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply to this question of forced labour in Russia exactly the same principles that he applies to the question of forced labour in Africa and other countries?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should not like to reply with regard to any other part of the world at the moment. On the legal point, I should require notice of any questions.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the same action as the United States Government have taken?

TARIFFS.

Sir K. WOOD: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Lade whether he has now any further information to give to the House concerning the operations of
the Tariff Truce; and if he proposes to take any further steps to secure the reduction of tariffs?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The reduction of tariffs is, as I have previously explained, not dealt with in the Commercial Convention or so-called Tariff Truce, but is to form the subject of negotiations, along with other questions, under the Protocol regarding Further Negotiations. The League of Nations is at present taking certain preliminary steps with a view to these negotiations.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time that this farce was finished?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir; it is very difficult to finish anything whim has never begun.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain a copy of the recently issued bankers' resolution and send it to Geneva, as the resolution will have more effect in reducing hostile tariffs than any action of the Tariff Truce Conference?

COTTON GOODS (FREIGHTS).

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average cost for freight of a bale of any specified class of cotton goods from Osaka to Bombay and from Manchester to Bombay, respectively; what is the difference in distance from the two ports; and how much of the freight on English goods is accounted for by Suez Canal dues?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am informed that the average cost of freight per bale of cotton piece goods from Osaka to Bombay is 8s. 9d. and from Manchester to Bombay 15s. 9d. The distance from Osaka to Bombay is nearly 1,100 miles less than that from Manchester to Bombay. It is not possible to estimate the real effect of Suez Canal dues on rates of freight for any particular commodity as this depends on the size of the vessel and the classes and quantities of goods carried.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does not the difference arise very largely from the different standard of wages paid in the mercantile marines of the two countries?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is undoubtedly one of the factors in the situation.

RUSSIA.

Sir K. WOOD: 53.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he proposes to publish any reports in relation to trade with Russia which he has received from our trade commissioners in Russia?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The reports so far received by my Department from the Commercial Counsellor at Moscow relate to matters which are of interest to particular firms and as such are not suitable for general publication.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman received a request for a loan in any of those reports?

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: When will the reports be circulated?

Mr. GILLETT: I must have notice of that question.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Does the hon. Member propose to follow the practice followed by his offices in all other countries and publish an annual report prepared by the trade commissioners?

Mr. GILLETT: I have not actually considered the matter, because they have not been there for a year.

Mr. TAYLOR: Have these reports already been circulated?

Mr. GILLETT: Only to special firms who are interested.

Mr. TAYLOR: Are the reports sent out to all firms, or only to firms who request them?

Mr. GILLETT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

Sir A. POWNALL: Will the reports be available to Members of Parliament who wish to consult them in detail?

Mr. GILLETT: I have no doubt whatever that the information will be given to Members of Parliament.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will these reports contain any reference to the Soviet delegation's wish to place an
order in Northampton for 3,000,000 pairs of boots to be paid for five years after delivery?

Dr. V. DAVIES (for Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE): 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the plans officially foreshadowed by the Soviet Government for the initiation in the autumn of an extensive dumping campaign in respect of Soviet produce; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiries to be made.

Mr. GILLETT: I have no information that any such programme as is described by the hon. Member has been formulated. His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow will not fail to report any development of this nature which may occur.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE (AGENDA).

Captain CAZALET: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the subject of the nationality of married women within the Empire will be included in the agenda of the forthcoming Imperial Conference?

Mr. THOMAS: As I have explained in reply to previous questions, the agenda for the Imperial Conference is a matter for agreement between ourselves and the Dominions, and it is not possible at this stage to specify it in detail. But, as has been intimated by the Prime Minister, it is hoped that it will be possible for an outline of the agenda to be announced before the House rises.

Captain CAZALET: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 72 women's organisations in this country and in the Empire are unanimous in desiring to have the law altered in this respect?

Mr. THOMAS: I shall always accept any information with regard to women from my hon. and gallant Friend.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman really treat this matter seriously, and give us a definite reply as to whether this subject will be considered at the Conference?

Mr. THOMAS: I hope that my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend was serious.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the
Prime Minister has declared himself in favour of this reform?

Mr. THOMAS: The question put to me was in reference to its position on the agenda, and my answer was that the agenda is a matter for agreement between the Dominions and ourselves. I hope at a later stage to be able to give an intimation on this matter. Undoubtedly, this question must be a question for discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the text of Section 43 of the letters patent embodying the Southern Rhodesia constitution, as now amended, to render possible the passing of the Land Apportionment Act?

Mr. THOMAS: As the reply is necessarily a somewhat long one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The text of Section 43 of the Southern Rhodesia Constitution Letters Patent, 1923, as amended by Letters Patent dated the 26th of March, 1930, reads as follows:

"(1) A native may acquire, hold, encumber and dispose of land on the same conditions as a person who is not a native, but no contract for encumbering or alienating land the property of a native shall be valid unless the contract is made in the presence of a Magistrate, is attested by him, and hears a certificate signed by him stating that the consideration for the contract is fair and reasonable, and that he has satisfied himself that the native understands the transaction.
(2)—

(a) A Law passed by the Legislature in order to secure that natives may alone acquire and hold land in certain parts of the Colony, and that persons who are not natives may alone acquire and hold land in other parts of the Colony, or to make further provision in regard to the encumbrance and disposal of land acquired and held by natives, shall not, if it has received our assent as hereinafter provided, be deemed to be repugnant to the foregoing sub-section or to repeal or alter any of the provisions of these Our Letters Patent or to be made in contravention of the limitations imposed by sub-section (2) of section 26 thereof.
(b) The Governor shall reserve for the significance of Our pleasure any Law passed by the Legislature in pursuance of the foregoing paragraph, and no such Law shall have any force unless and until the Governor
1091
has made known that it has received Our assent in the manner provided in sections 32, 33 and 34 of these Our Letters Patent.

(3) The provisions of the foregoing subsection shall apply to any Law amending, altering or repealing any such Law passed and assented to by Us as aforesaid."

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

IRISH LIGHTS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the negotiations with the Irish Free State in respect of Irish lights have yet been concluded; and, if not, whether he can say what is the present position?

Mr. THOMAS: Negotiations on this matter are still proceeding. I am afraid that it is not possible to indicate when they are likely to be concluded.

Major ROSS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the interests of Northern Ireland will be protected in any arrangement that is come to?

Mr. THOMAS: I will give an assurance that everybody's interests will be safeguarded.

HEALTH CONDITIONS.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the Joint Committee set up 12 months ago to consider and advise on any questions affecting the health of the mercantile marine; and when a report on the subject is likely to be made?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies to his question of the 1st April last and to that to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) on the 24th December last on the work of this Committee; and would add that the inquiries into the mortality statistics of seamen and the hygiene of crew spaces are making satisfactory progress, but that it must necessarily be some time before the Committee can complete its consideration of these problems.

Mr. LEWIS: If I put a question down in 12 months time will the right hon. Gentleman be able to reply?

Mr. GRAHAM: I can make my Friend a better offer. If he will communicate with me in a week or two, I will give him as full a reply as I can.

ROYAL SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 60.
asked the Minister of Health to whom has been transferred the responsibility previously borne by the Board of Trade for the administration of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund; and, if it is administered by a committee, will he state the names of the members thereof?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): The Seamen's Special Fund, now known as the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund, has not at any time been administered by the Board of Trade. Under Section 64 (2) of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, as amended by Section 22 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1928, the Fund is administered by a governing body constituted in accordance with a scheme prepared by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee after consultation with the Board of Trade.
The governing body consists of fourteen members, seven representing shipowners and seven representing all classes of persons entitled to benefits out of the Fund. The present members of the governing body are: Mr. C. McLaren, Mr. M. Tearle, Mr. S. G. Le Touzel, Captain C. H. Holttum, Mr. D. Bramah, Mr. W. Wood and Mr. C. McVey, representing beneficiaries and Mr. F. C. Allen, Mr. M. Hill, Sir Norman Hill, Mr. C. Laws, Mr. D. Radcliffe and Mr. H. B. Gordon Warren representing shipowners (one vacancy).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is there any representative of English fishermen serving on this committee, and, if not, will the hon. Lady and her colleague consider appointing someone to represent the English fishing industry?

Miss LAWRENCE: There are some representatives of the beneficiaries on the committee.

HON. MEMBERS: English fishermen?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Will the hon. Lady make inquiries as to whether there
is a representative of English fishermen on the committee? We know that there are representatives of the Scottish fisheries.

Miss LAWRENCE: I will make inquiries and communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when it is proposed to appoint a member to the vacant seat on the committee?

Miss LAWRENCE: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of complaints that have been made to his Department during the previous 12 months concerning the infringement of Part I of the Cinematograph Films Act of 1927; whether the advisory committee appointed under this Act have considered these various complaints; the number of meetings that have been held by the advisory committee during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; whether any prosecutions have taken place in respect of these infringements during the same period; and can he give the House particulars?

The following statement shows the total quantity and declared value of wheat, registered as imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during 1929, and during the first and second quarters of 1930, distinguishing the imports registered during these periods as consigned from France and from Germany, respectively.


—
Total Imports from all countries.
Imports consigned from


France.
Germany.


1929.





Cwts.
…
…
…
…
…
…
111,767,398
24,284
1,676,404


£
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
57,784,498
13,603
846,510


1930.





1st Quarter—





Cwts.
…
…
…
…
…
…
20,866,320
680,233
15,662


£
…
…
…
…
…
…
10,688,907
302,356
7,781


2nd Quarter—





Cwts.
…
…
…
…
…
…
21,266,543
2,469,842
10,000


£
…
…
…
…
…
…
9,540,086
968,160
3,000

Mr. W. GRAHAM: There have been no complaints of the kind referred to in the first part of the question within the period specified, and the second, fourth and fifth parts of the question do not, therefore, arise. The committee has held 13 meetings in the last 12 months.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the prosecution that took place on account of an infringement only last week; and will he suggest to the committee that they should consider the great difficulty that independent cinema contributors have of obtaining their quota?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not familiar with the prosecution, but, if the hon. Gentleman refers to the quota, that comes under Part III of the Act, which is not the part covered by his question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WHEAT IMPORTS.

Major NATHAN: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of wheat imported in the year 1929 and in the first and second quarters of 1930 from all countries, France and Germany, respectively?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I will circulate the figures asked for in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. SKELTON: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the average cost of constituting a small holding in 1920 and in 1929 respectively?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): Owing to the wide variations in the size, type and equipment of small holdings, it is not possible to give general average figures as desired, but I may say that the cost of land purchased for this purpose has fallen by 25 per cent. from approximately £40 per

—
Number of applicants.
Number provided with holdings.
Total.


On land acquired before 15th December, 1926.*
On land acquired after 15th December, 1926.*


1927
…
…
3,248
890
98
988


1928
…
…
2,757
1,133
153
1,286


1929
…
…
2,440
817
146
963


*The date of the passing of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926.

In addition to the number of applicants as stated above, there were at the end of 1926 5,565 applicants on the waiting lists. The corresponding number on the 31st December, 1929, was 5,369, and during the intervening period 5,404 applications were either rejected or withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES.

STATISTICS.

Mr. MORLEY: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give effect to the recommendation of the Balfour Committee and require safeguarded and protected industries to furnish periodical statistics relating to their volume of production, wages and employment?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) on 23rd July and 26th November last year, of which I am sending him copies.

LACE INDUSTRY.

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether

acre in 1920 to £30 per acre in 1929, while building costs have decreased by about 40 per cent.

Mr. SKELTON: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of persons applying for small holdings in the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 respectively, and the number of holdings provided in each of those years?

Dr. ADDISON: As the reply contains a number of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

he is aware that stocks of duty-paid lace are being re-exported to the country of origin in order to get a rebate of duty with the intention of re-importing such stocks duty free after 1st July; and whether, in view of the consequent injury to British trade and the loss to the revenue, he proposes to take steps to stop this practice?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): Under Section 6 (3) of the Finance Act, 1925, on proof to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that lace on which import duty has been paid has been re-exported as merchandise, a drawback equal to the amount of the duty paid is allowable, provided the goods have not-been used in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. The title to drawback is not affected by the lapse of the import duty as from the 1st July, and there is no authority for continuing the duty charge upon lace re-imported on or after that date. I am not aware of the extent to which duty-paid stocks of lace are being re-exported with the intention of re-importing them duty free, but it must obviously be limited to the excess of the duty-paid stocks in the possession of
traders on the 1st July when duty-free importations were available. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this practice involves a loss to the Exchequer and to the British taxpayer?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No; it is just the ordinary practice whenever duties are changed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CLIFTON PIT, NOTTINGHAM (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many accidents to miners have occurred during the last 12 months at the Clifton Pit, Nottingham; and how many times during the same period was the pit visited by inspectors of the Department?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): During the last 12 months, 11 accidents at this colliery, of which four were fatal, have been reported to the inspector. Nine of these accidents were caused by falls of roof or sides. During the same period 24 inspections have been made, of which five were on the surface, 17 were underground, and two were horse inspections. The question of preventing accidents at this colliery has been engaging the close attention of the management and of His Majesty's inspectors, and special steps are being taken which it is hoped will reduce the risk of falls.

Mr. KNIGHT: Were the figures mentioned in the reply communicated by the officials of this colliery, or were they collected from independent official sources?

Mr. SHINWELL: I rather imagine that they are collected from information supplied by the colliery, but they are carefully checked.

BOYS (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the youngest age at which boys are employed working underground in the coal mines, and the maximum hours a day that boys under 16 years of age are thus employed?

Mr. SHINWELL: No boy may be employed in a coal mine until he is 14 years of age. The law as to their hours of employment is the same as that for other underground workmen.

BLAENH RWARN COLLIERY, CARMARTHENSHIRE (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).

Mr. HOPKIN: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the position of the men who have been awarded compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts at the Blaenhirwarn colliery, Cross Hands, Carmarthenshire; and whether there is a prospect of having this question settled soon?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): My right hon. Friend is informed by the receiver in charge of the colliery that the position has not changed since his letter of the 12th November last, a copy of which was supplied to my hon. Friend. He is afraid that payment of any further compensation in the outstanding cases depends on the sale of the colliery, and he regrets to say that the receiver states that in spite of all efforts to that end he has not yet been able to effect a sale.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

SPECIAL STAMPS.

Mr. AYLES: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the issue of a special peace postage stamp that can be used as an alternative stamp by those who care to adopt this method of testifying to their desire for peace and disarmament?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): The policy of the Post Office is opposed to the issue of special stamps, save in the most exceptional circumstances, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot agree to the issue of a special peace and disarmament stamp.

LETTER DELIVERIES.

Mr. DAY: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of districts in England and Wales which do not have a daily delivery of
letters; and whether any action has been taken by the Post Office to remedy this inconvenience?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: There are a number of isolated places in various parts of England, Scotland and Wales where it has not hitherto been possible to provide a daily delivery without incurring quite disproportionate expense, but particulars of the precise number of such places are not available. The possibility of increasing the frequency of delivery in these cases is kept under review, and a considerable number of them have been dealt with in the last few months.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say how many deliveries they have per week where there is not a daily delivery.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: In most cases there are three or four a week.

TELEPHONE EXCHANGES (STAFF ACCOMMODATION).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 43.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his Department lays down any minimum conditions as to cubic space per worker and ventilation in telephone exchanges in the United Kingdom; if so, what are the regulations; and has he received any complaints as to their not being observed?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The variations in size and type of telephone exchanges, and in the methods of housing them, render it impossible to deal with this question within the limits of a Parliamentary reply. If the hon. and gallant Member will send me particulars of the case he has in mind, I will make inquiry.

TELEPHONE CALL-BOXES (SHELVES).

Major SALMON: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider providing the public telephone call-boxes with a shelf, in order that members of the public may be able to consult the telephone directory more conveniently than is at present the case?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Shelves to accommodate the telephone directory are being provided in all kiosks of the cast-iron type (the red ones). The question of providing shelves in concrete kiosks (the cream ones with the red windows) is receiving consideration.

WIRELESS STATION, RUGBY.

Dr. V. DAVIES (for Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE): 42.
asked the Postmaster-General what has been the revenue earned by the Rugby wireless station during the present year; and what have been the outgoings incurred in maintenance and service?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The actual figures in respect of the revenue and expenditure of the services conducted by the Rugby wireless station for the financial year 1929–30 are not yet available. The approximate figures are as follow:



£


Revenue
222,000


Expenditure
208,000

Oral Answers to Questions — CURRENCY AND BANKING COMMITTEE.

Mr. BENNETT: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the report of the Committee on Banking and Credit may be expected?

Mr. MORLEY: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the report of the Macmillan Commission on Finance and Industry will be published?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Members to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) on the 15th April and 3rd July, to which I am unable to add anything.

Mr. MORLEY: In view of the fact that in authoritative economic circles it is considered that the present extent of unemployment is due to financial causes, will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to hasten the publication of this report?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, I could not possibly do that. The subject into which this committee is inquiring is a very comprehensive one, and I think, if I were to make any such representations to them as the hon. Member suggests, it would lead to a very unsatisfactory and incomplete report.

Mr. HAYCOCK: How often does the committee meet?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know how often it meets. I know it has met frequently, and there has been no
suggestion at all that the members of the committee are not bending their energies to this question or that they will not report as soon as possible.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that within the last three weeks the committee received very important evidence from the Federation of Cotton Spinners?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I know nothing about that. When I appoint a committee like this, I make it a rule not to interfere.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL GALLERIES (LOANS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the approximate number of framed pictures and drawings at the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery which are not hung on permanent exhibition at those galleries?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on the 10th July.

Captain CAZALET: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any legislation is in contemplation to bring into effect the decision of the trustees of the National Gallery concerning the loaning of English pictures and whether he intends to introduce such legislation at an early date?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: A Bill dealing with loans of pictures abroad is being drafted for early consideration.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will this Measure enable the trustees to lend more pictures for exhibition in the provinces, so that pictures can be devoted to the purposes for which they were painted, instead of being stored away unseen to await exhibition at Trafalgar Square or in the Tate Gallery?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid I could not prejudge the terms of a Measure that is not yet prepared.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTROSE ESTATE (DEATH DUTIES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
whether inquiry has been made as to the amount of the annual values as taken for purposes of rating and taxation of the properties bordering on Loch Lomond which are being offered by the Duke of Montrose to be taken over by the State; if so, what is the amount of their annual values as so taken; and what is the price at which they are being offered?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; consideration of the second and third parts of the question does not therefore arise. I may add that the properties offered by the Duke of Montrose included, in addition to the properties bordering on Loch Lomond, other properties, comprising three farms at Fintry. In accordance with the usual practice, particulars of the properties offered were made known by the Inland Revenue Department to such public departments or bodies as were thought to be interested, but none of them desired to purchase any of the properties adjoining Loch Lomond. The properties at Fintry have been purchased by the Commissioners of Crown Lands for the sum of £17,000.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the bon. Gentleman able to state the price at which they were offered? Against what sum of Death Duties were the properties offered?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think we ought to state the price that may have been given to the Inland Revenue.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we not entitled to know the price at which the property was offered—in the public interest?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It would be a matter of negotiation between the Government and the owner, and I do not think that ought to be disclosed.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what value was put upon this by the Inland Revenue and whether that was the price paid for it?

Mr. SPEAKER: Captain Cazalet?

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHESTER ROYAL COLLEGE OF MUSIC (GRANT).

Mr. P. OLIVER: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the grounds for the continued refusal of a grant to the Manchester Royal College of Music similar to the grants made to the other two chartered colleges of music in England?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that State grants are given to any institutions from the Vote for Scientific Investigations etc. The Vote has for many years provided grants to the Royal Academy of Music and the Royal College of Music, London, not because they are chartered colleges, but because, like the other Institutions included in the Vote, they are national in their scope.

Mr. OLIVER: Is not this a very invidious distinction between London and the rest of England?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: This arrangement has gone on for very many years, and I am afraid I could not add anything to the answer.

Mr. OLIVER: Is this precedent of past Governments to count?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer.

Mr. HARDIE: What is the basis of the grant?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION, SUNDERLAND (NURSERY SCHOOL).

Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Sunderland education authority has now included the provision of a nursery school in its programme; and, if not, whether the Board of Education is satisfied that it is making suitable provision for young children, especially in its poorest and most crowded areas?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I have not yet received the answer of the Sunderland Local Education Authority to my request for information as to their proposals in regard to young children, but I am communicating with them again.

Sir A. POWNALL: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the provision of nursery gardens?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the President of the Board of Education bear in mind that most of these nursery schools are run by voluntary associations, and will he do something to stimulate local authorities to start nursery schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: There are twice as many nursery schools now being built as are in existence.

Viscountess ASTOR: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps hon. Members will allow the Noble Lady to put her question.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that most of these schools were started under private enterprise, and is it not the duty of the Government to stimulate local authorities to start nursery schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: We are stimulating local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and myself have issued a circular quite recently urging local authorities to start these nursery schools.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (MEDICAL SERVICE).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will say what are the arrangements in force for providing medical attention for the families of officers and men in the Air Force?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): I would refer the hon. Member to the detailed provisions upon this subject contained in Chapter XIX, Sections IV and V, King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions for the Royal Air Force, 1929; they are too long to quote in reply to a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (TAMAR BRIDGE).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received the engineer's report on the construction of a bridge over the Tamar?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have just received
the engineer's report, and I am causing copies to be sent to the Devon County Council, the Plymouth City Council, and the Great Western Railway Company for their observations.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to let me see a copy?

Mr. MORRISON: If the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will try to arrange it. The number of copies is very limited.

Mr. MOSES: Does that apply to each Member for the city of Plymouth?

Mr. MORRISON: Certainly, we should not treat any hon. Member for Plymouth less courteously than other hon. Members.

Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the linking up of the counties of Devon and Cornwall make it necessary for the Cornish Members also to have copies?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES.

Mr. MORLEY: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour the level of the real wages of the people of Great Britain for the half-year ended June, 1930, as compared with the half-year ended June, 1929?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): In the half-year ended June, 1930, working-class cost of living, as indicated by the index numbers compiled by the Ministry of Labour, averaged approximately 21 per cent. lower than in the half-year ended June, 1929. Weekly full-time rates of wages, in the half-year ended June, 1930, were slightly lower, on average, than in the half-year ended June, 1929, the difference being less than ½ of 1 per cent. On this basis, it would appear that real wages for a full week had risen, on average, by rather more than 2 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAX OFFICES, PLYMOUTH.

Mr. MOSES: 61.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the offices provided for His Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes and their staffs at Prudential Buildings, Plymouth,
are inadequate for present requirements; whether it is proposed to obtain alternative accommodation; and whether it is proposed to consider the possibility of providing centralised accommodation for all Government offices in Plymouth?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): Although proposals for improving the arrangement of staff within these offices are at present under consideration, the existing offices in Prudential Chambers are adequate for present requirements, and no steps are being taken to provide alternative accommodation for the Inland Revenue staffs. The provision of centralised accommodation for all the Government offices in Plymouth is not regarded as practicable.

Mr. FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prison premises in Plymouth are about to be vacated, and could those premises not be used for representatives of the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL (DIVISION 424).

Mr. B. SMITH (Treasurer of the Household) and Major OWEN: attended at the Table.

Mr. SMITH: I desire to state that in Division No. 424, taken on the 9th July, the figure reported for the Noes was 278, but that, as a matter of fact, the figure was 277, and that the Liberal Whip and myself concur in this figure.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will instruct the Clerk to make the necessary correction in the Journals of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take after Eleven o'Clock to-night in the event of the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I should like very much to take no business at all after Eleven, but the first four Orders of the Day might, I think, be obtained without any unduly late sitting.

HON. MEMBERS: Speak up!

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the first four Orders of the Day are of such a nature that we can get through them without an unduly late sitting.

Mr. BALDWIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when the Public Works Loans Bill will be further considered?

The PRIME MINISTER: That will have to be taken next week.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 134.

Division No. 432.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Granville, E.
Marcus, M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Markham, S. F.


Addison, Rt, Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marley, J.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Groves, Thomas E.
Marshall, Fred


Alpass, J. H.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George


Arnott, John
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Matters, L. W.


Ayles, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Melville, Sir James


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Messer, Fred


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Millar, J. D.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Milner, Major J.


Barr, James
Hardie, George D.
Montague, Frederick


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morley, Ralph


Bellamy, Albert
Haycock, A. W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Hayes, John Henry
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mort, D. L.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Herriotts, J.
Moses, J. J. H.


Bowen, J. W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Muff, G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Murnin, Hugh


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hollins, A.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brooke, W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Brothers, M.
Horrabin, J. F.
Oldfield, J. R.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Buchanan, G.
Isaacs, George
Paling, Wilfrid


Burgess, F. G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Palmer, E. T.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Johnston, Thomas
Perry, S. F.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Chater, Daniel
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Church, Major A. G.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pole, Major D. G.


Clarke, J. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, Thomas
Price, M. P.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Quibell, D. F. K.


Compton, Joseph
Kinley, J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cove, William G.
Knight, Holford
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cowan, D. M.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Richards, R.


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richardson, B. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dallas, George
Lathan, G.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Dalton, Hugh
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Ritson, J.


Day, Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Romeril, H. G.


Dickson, T.
Lawson, John James
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rowson, Guy


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Ede, James Chuter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sanders, W. S.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Egan, W. H.
Lowth, Thomas
Scott, James


Elmley, Viscount
Lunn, William
Scurr, John


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Forgan, Dr. Robert
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sherwood, G. H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McElwee, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McEntee, V. L.
Shillaker, J. F.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Shinwell, E.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McKinlay, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Simmons, C. J.


Gillett, George M.
Macphenon, Rt. Hon. James I.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Glassey, A. E.
McShane, John James
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gossling, A. G.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sinkinson, George


Gould, F.
Mansfield, W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
March, S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wellock, Wilfred


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Tinker, John Joseph
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Smith, kennie (Penistone)
Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Turner, B.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Snell, Harry
Vaughan, D. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Walkden, A. G.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sorensen, R.
Walker, J.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Wallace, H. W.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Stephen, Campbell
Wallhead, Richard C.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Watkins, F. C.



Sullivan, J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
William Whitely.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Astor, Viscountess
Ferguson, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fielder, E. B.
Remer, John R.


Atkinson, C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Balniel, Lord
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Beaumont, M. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Berry, Sir George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Salmon, Major I.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Hammersley, S. S.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hartington, Marquess of
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Savery, S. S.


Bracken, B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Briscoe, Richard George
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Skelton, A. N.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Buchan, John
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Butler, R. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Carver, Major W. H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tinne, J. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Christie, J. A.
Locker-Lampton, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Train, J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colman, N. C. D.
Macquisten, F. A.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Colville, Major D. J.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cranbourne, Viscount
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Meller, R. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Womersley, W. J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Muirhead, A. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)



Eden, Captain Anthony
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edmondton, Major A. J.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Penny, Sir George
Frederick Thomson.


Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Lucy Edith, Baroness Noel-Buxton, for County of Norfolk (Northern Division).

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have agreed to,—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Goole and Oldham) Bill,

South Yorkshire and Derbyshire Gas Bill,

London and North Eastern Railway (No. 2) Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Macclesfield and Willesden." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Macclesfield and Willesden) Bill [Lords].

Coal Mines Bill,

That they have agreed to the Amendments made by the Commons to their Amendments to the Coal Mines Bill, and to the Commons consequential Amendment to the Bill, without Amendment; that they insist on the Amendments last made by them, to which the Commons have disagreed, for which insistence they assign their Reason.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Goole and Oldham) Bill,

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Macclesfield and Willesden) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 238.]

Coal Mines Bill,

Lords Reason for insisting on their Amendments to the Bill to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 237.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I beg to move.
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Adam-son to Clause 2, page 3, line 21, Clause 4, page 4, line 13, Schedule 2, page 40, line 41, Schedule 2, page 41, line 30, Schedule 3, page 42, line 35, and Schedule 3, page 43, line 12.
The re-committal of this Bill is a purely formal proceeding to give effect to a pledge given by the Under-Secretary during the Committee stage. On all hands I have been pressed to remedy an injustice which is possible under the present law whereby a proprietor may have 100 per cent. deducted from his compensation if the local authorities should decree that the land in future is to be reserved as an open space. This is clearly unfair to an individual proprietor, and we have met the difficulty by ensuring that no one will get less than site value. Everyone has agreed that this safeguard should be inserted.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Clearance Orders.)

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) In the case of any building included in a clearance order consisting wholly of dwelling-houses or other premises which are specified in the order as injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the bad arrangement of the streets, the local authority shall, if required by the owner of the building at any time within three months after the date of the order becoming operative, purchase the building and any land attached thereto, the price payable by the local authority being a sum equal to the compensation which would have been paid by the authority had the said building and land been compulsorily purchased by the authority under a compulsory purchase
order under this Part of this Act and had the said building been specified in the order as injurious or dangerous to health.
4.0 p.m.
This Amendment covers a point which was adequately discussed on the Committee stage. I think it was put by the late Lord Advocate that it would be unfair if a proprietor of a dwelling-house in a slum clearance area was compelled to demolish his building, and if all that was wrong with the building was due, not to anything in the building itself, but to the bad arrangement of the streets or to the neighbouring property. This Amendment gives power to the local authority to purchase that property, and to give the proprietor site value for the property. That, I think, meets the difficulty raised by the late Lord Advocate in Committee, but since we have tabled this Amendment to ensure that the proprietor will at least get site value, I observe that the Opposition have put down an Amendment to it to provide that the value shall be market value. That is an Amendment which we could not possibly accept. To begin with, this covers a very narrow point. There are very few properties which are bad solely because of the bad arrangement of the streets. We do not deny that there may be some, but they are very few. If there be such properties, their value has been fixed by the fact that they were in this bad area, and if they were bought by the present proprietor, they would have been bought at site value and not market value, and it is obvious that it would be unfair now, at the public expense, to give market value to the proprietor who had purchased this property in a bad area; in other words, to give him a value which he himself had not put upon the property when he purchased it.
Since 1919, such property as that with which we are dealing in this Amendment, has been taken as bad property, and worth only site value, and as all the intervening Housing Acts which have dealt with this matter since 1919 have declared that only site value at best should be paid for such property, the present Government are not prepared to advise the Committee to go further, and to give the market value of the property. I repeat, there are very few such cases, but, if there be such cases, the value of the property now is determined by the circumstances
in which it exists. The proprietor has bought his property on that basis, and we say it is grossly unfair that at the public expense the proprietor of such property should now have, under the terms of this Bill, an added value accruing to it. We, therefore, think that in this Amendment we have met the general sense of the Committee voiced by the late Lord Advocate. We are ensuring that such a proprietor shall have site value for his property, but we do not think that he ought to have an added value.

Mr. MacROBERT: The Government certainly have gone some way to meet us on this point. I understand that if it is merely a case of the bad arrangement of the streets, the property has to be purchased if the owner desires it. Then the question arises, Upon what basis is the compensation to be fixed? If I understand the subsequent Amendment of the Government, where premises are built after the passing of this Bill, the market value will be given, but, as regards all existing houses, they will get site value. I am bound to say that I follow the Under-Secretary's argument with regard to houses which have been purchased after 1919. They were bought in the knowledge that these houses were looked upon with disfavour by the Legislature, and certainly with regard to that class of case, I admit the force of the Under-Secretary's argument. On the other hand, you are going to do a great injustice to those people who are not buying and selling property, but who have had their own houses, probably for 20 or 30 years. After all, it is quite a different class of case where a house is unfit for human habitation by reason of the narrowness of the streets, and not by reason of any defect in the house itself. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will be able to meet us the whole way in this particular matter.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I rise to support the Government Amendment. I think that in this case they have met us very fairly. They gave a pledge in Committee to recommit the Bill in respect of this point, which was discussed at very great length, and, therefore, it will not be necessary for me to discuss it here and now. It is quite clear that the proper value to be placed upon a building of this kind is the valuation which is ordinarily given to it. Environment is
one of the leading factors in determining the value, and the Under-Secretary has taken, in my judgment, the right view of the value to be given. It is quite clear that when property of that kind was purchased, certainly within the last 10 years, it was purchased with the knowledge of impending legislation, and also with a complete knowledge of the environment. Accordingly, I shall support the Government in their Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Treatment of clearance area.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 13, leave out the words "or the laying out of open spaces."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Compulsory Purchase Orders.)

Amendments made: In page 40, line 41, leave out the words "or for laying out as an open space."

In page 41, line 30, leave out the words "or for the laying out as an open space."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Part I: Modifications to be made in Sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Principal Act for the purposes of its application to the assessment of compensation under this Act in the case of land, including dwelling-houses or other premises thereon specified in a compulsory purchase order as unfit for human habitation or injurious or dangerous to health.)

Amendments made: In page 42, line 35, leave out the words "or for laying out as an open space."

In page 43, line 12, after the word "of," to insert the words "and the words 'or the laying out of open spaces.'"—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Duty of local authority to have regard to amenities of locality, etc.)

A local authority, in preparing any proposals for the provision of houses or in taking any action under this or the principal Act, shall have regard to the natural amenities of the locality and the desirability of preserving existing works of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, and shall comply with such directions, if any, in that behalf as may be given to them by the department.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Sub-section (3) of Clause 22 makes provision for safeguarding "the natural amenities of the locality," and taking into account, and, so far as possible, preserving existing works of architectural, historic or artistic interest. When the Bill was going through Committee, it became apparent that the terms of the Bill were not sufficiently protective, and, indeed, I think that was the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for Scotland. The terms of the Bill do not safeguard or preserve architectural or historic buildings under previous Acts. It does not safeguard, for example, the house of John Knox against the operations of the principal Act of 1925, and so we have put down this Amendment with the object of making it clear beyond doubt that the local authorities under whatever Act they proceed must have regard to buildings of architectural, historic or artistic interest. The Amendment is put down in order to meet the views generally expressed on all sides during the Committee stage.

Sir JOHN GILMOUR: I am grateful to the Government for having endeavoured to deal with an admittedly very difficult problem. We are all anxious that ancient buildings which have a great deal to do with the past history of our country should, as far as possible, be preserved, and those of us who are aware of the difficult circumstances which attend the maintenance of these ancient buildings and at the same time endeavour to conform with modern requirements to ensure decent living
know that in cities like Edinburgh and Stirling these matters are very difficult. I observe that this new Clause gives very wide powers to the Department. I presume, of course, that the Department would be in close consultation with the Ancient Monuments Commission and that they would be largely guided by their advice. Obviously, the Department themselves would not perhaps be competent judges of these matters except upon representation from outside bodies, and, if it be the intention of the Department to work in close co-operation with the Ancient Monuments Commission, I shall be satisfied.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like to support the new Clause. It fulfils what was promised in the course of the discussion upstairs. I think it covers, for instance, the points which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Dr. Hunter). Under the Measure as it stood, there was no guarantee that in any housing scheme of that progressive borough which is represented by my hon. Friend the historic house or home of Robert Burns would be immune from the depredations of any un-historically-minded local authority. Under this Clause there will be full consultation with great authorities like the Ancient Monuments Commission and people who are interested in the history and traditions of the country. I am certain that the Department will be very careful that none of these ancient landmarks is destroyed by any local authority who might in the interests of modernisation desire to get rid of buildings of that character. I therefore welcome the Clause, and I am glad that the Government have seen their way to meet us in this handsome manner.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) that the point which he has in view will be fully met, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) that it will be one of my duties to safeguard such points as he has raised.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Adjustment of rents.)

(1) If it appears to a local authority, who have under this Part of this Act provided in new houses accommodation available for displaced persons, that it is desirable to render alternative accommodation available for some of those persons in other houses belonging to the authority which, by reason of their situation or for other reasons, are better suited to the requirements of the displaced persons, but that the rents charged by the authority in respect of those other houses (hereafter in this section referred to as "the alternative houses") are higher than the rents which would, but for the provisions of this section, be charged by them in respect of equivalent accommodation in the new houses, the authority may represent the facts to the Department and thereupon the Department, if satisfied that the representation is well founded, may authorise the authority to charge in respect of the alternative houses such rents as they would, but for the provisions of this section, have charged in respect of equivalent accommodation in the new houses.

(2) The following provisions shall have effect where the rents of any alternative houses are reduced in pursuance of the last preceding sub-section, that is to say:—

(a) For the purposes of the financial provisions of any enactment applicable in the case of the alternative houses the authority shall be deemed to be charging in respect of those houses the rents which but for the provisions of this section they would have charged in respect of them;
(b) For the purposes of condition (c) of the special conditions set out in this part of this Act, the estimated average annual expenses to be taken into account in fixing the rents of the new houses concerned shall be deemed to be increased by an amount equal to the difference between the rents charged by the authority in respect of the alternative houses and the rents which, but for the provisions of this section, they would have charged in respect of them; and
(c) The authority shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Department with respect to the making of adjustments in the accounts of their housing undertakings.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This formidable looking new Clause deals with the question of the adjustment of rents and I think that I can explain, very briefly and succinctly, what it means. The position which it covers is one which must be well known to every hon. Member who has taken part in the work of local Government recently. Supposing
that under the operations of this Bill a local authority had a slum family to rehouse and it had a vacant Addison house, or a vacant Wheatley house, or a house built under some previous scheme, obviously, in the interests of municipal economy, it would be desirable, if the house were suitable, that that family should be rehoused in the vacant house in the possession of the local authority. We are giving power to a, local authority by means of this Clause to transfer the family in question to the vacant Addison house and to ensure that the loss on the Addison scheme shall be debited to the new slum clearance scheme. It is very largely a matter of book-keeping on the part of the local authority. The Clause ensures that the loss on the Addison part of the scheme of the local authority shall be debited against the slum clearance scheme.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there was a considerable loss on the Addison scheme; there is a very heavy burden of debt?

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is only the difference between the loss on what we call the slum scheme and the loss on the Addison scheme which will be chargeable to the slum clearance scheme. We have gone into this matter very fully with representatives of the authorities, and we are satisfied that it is absolutely necessary not only for the proper working of our scheme but for the proper working of the various housing schemes to give the local authorities this power.

Major ELLIOT: This Amendment, as the Under-Secretary of State has said, is a long and very formidable one, but I think there is a good deal of ground for the case that he has made out. There is no doubt that one of the difficulties in the finances of local authorities is the extreme complication of housing schemes. There is the Addison scheme, the Chamberlain scheme, the Wheatley scheme, and now what we may call the Adamson scheme, with a few such things as the Scottish National Housing Trust scheme. There is the rural workers' scheme where the landlord may or may not have increased the rent by 2½ per cent. on a third of the charges borne in connection with the making of the houses habitable. In all these respects, simplication is desirable. I think that the
Under-Secretary and the authorities will do well to consider the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). He pointed out that the deficit in respect of the Addison houses is considerable. It is true, as the Under-Secretary says, that it is the difference which is being taken off. That runs very close to a double subsidy and entails a fresh application of book-keeping. If part of the loss is to be borne by the Addison scheme and part by the slum clearance scheme, you will get, I am afraid, a very long wrangle between the Treasury, which is responsible for the loss on the Addison houses, and the local authority who are desirous of saving their purses as much as possible under the slum clearance scheme. I think that the proposal is a step in advance, but it is only practice which will enable us to see how it works out. The Government assure us that they have gone carefully into the question with the local authorities, and I think that we can say that we trust them in this respect and are willing that this experiment should be made. But I am not at all sure that it really clears up the point in question. It is another example of the fearful complication into which the finances of local authorities will begin to fall by reason of this multiplicity of schemes and shows the need for the introduction at an early date of a consolidating scheme.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I say, frankly, that I am not in a position either to oppose or support this Clause, because, when I read it this morning, I could not quite see what it meant. The Under-Secretary of State has given us a fairly adequate explanation, but I have looked in vain through the various Amendments which have been put down to find anything dealing with differential rents. I should have thought that this new Clause would have been the one in which they intended to cover the whole question of differential rents. I understand that that is not so. The Secretary of State will remember that the question of differential rents was raised in Committee upstairs, and that certain pledges were given. I should have thought that this Clause would have been the proper place in which to fulfil those pledges. For example, I asked a particular question. I took the case, not of a unit, but of
the families of a certain class, and I asked the Under-Secretary of State at that time whether, supposing he were to house a certain class in a certain street, there would be any differentiation in the rents as between the individuals in that particular street. I was assured at that time that there would be no such differentiation and that, if any individual occupied the same sort of house as that occupied by a friend or neighbour in that street, whatever the circumstances might be, the rent would be the same for each house.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we cannot possibly deal with that point on this particular Amendment. It arises later on. The sole point dealt with in this Amendment is whether the local authority should be given power to take a family from what we call a slum clearance house and put it into, say, a vacant Addison house in its possession and charge the slum clearance scheme with the difference.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that that point has been made abundantly clear. I am merely taking the precaution to find out from the Government now under which one of their Amendments they are going to deal with the point that I have been raising. They promised in Committee that they were going to deal with differential rents. I am within the recollection of hon. Members who sat on the Committee upstairs. A pledge was given that in the case to which I referred the Government would put down an Amendment to meet it. I have looked in vain through the Amendments on the Paper to find where the point is met, but, if the Under-Secretary says that the question of differential rents is to be raised in some form, I am perfectly content.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Certificate of execution of works.)

It shall be competent for a local authority to issue to the owner of any dwelling-house occupied by persons of the working classes a certificate that works of reconditioning, repair, or reconstruction required by the local authority have been executed to their satisfaction, and to fix in the said certificate
a period of not less than two or more than five years after which the condition of the dwelling-house shall be further reviewed:
Provided that if such dwelling-house is compulsorily closed, demolished, or purchased during the period of currency of the said certificate, compensation at market value shall be paid.—[Major Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This matter was raised in Committee upstairs but the Government did not see their way to accept it. Their main contention was that it would put the good owner of property in a less favourable position than the bad owner of property, who had been compelled by reason of a notice from a local authority to bring his property into a habitable state of repair. If the Government consider the matter further I think they will agree that that is an objection which should not be allowed to weigh against the broad and sound principle that a local authority, having asked a man to do certain repairs, should be in the position of being able to say to the man that they accept the repairs as having put the house in a habitable condition, that they would review the conditions of the house in two or five years' time but that during the currency of the certificate the owner shall have the assurance that if his property is taken over it will be taken over as a habitable house. This is not compulsory; it is optional.
It gives a local authority power to put a certain amount of compulsion on property owners; indeed to offer a certain inducement, which is often much better than compulsion. If a local authority is able to say to an owner, "If you do a certain amount of repairs we will give you a two years' certificate, and if you go further and do more we will give you a certificate of five years," they would have something to bargain with and might easily get a much more extensive programme of reconditioning carried through than by simply serving a notice which might lead to the house being condemned and demolished. The report show that several thousands of houses are dealt with in this way every year, and I am sure that more could be dealt with were it not for the uneasiness of owners that after they have executed
repairs the house might subsequently be condemned. It might be well worth while for a local authority to say to an owner of property, "execute this work and we will give you a certificate, and if within the period of the currency of the certificate your property is condemned it will be condemned at market value." That would lead to an improvement in housing conditions and the difficulty outlined by the Government could easily be overcome.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I hope I shall be able to persuade the hon. and gallant Member and his friends not to press this new Clause. It is proposed to give power to a local authority to give this certificate; and if it gives such a certificate presumably it would have in mind the considerations which hon. Members opposite have in moving this new Clause; that is, the desire to encourage the reconditioning of houses as far as possible. If a local authority had such consideration in mind obviously it is an authority which will be very unlikely to close property or order the demolition of property on which it had requested the proprietor to expend money within a period of two, three, or five years. The Amendment on the face of it is unnecessary. I cannot conceive of a local authority, in normal circumstances, doing other than is suggested in this new Clause. Suppose a certificate has been given to a proprietor that providing he executes certain repairs to his dwelling-house it will not be closed or demolished unless market value is paid within the period of two or five years; and suppose, after the certificate has been given, that dry rot sets in—something entirely different from that covered by the repairs undertaken—clearly it will be unfair to tie the hands of a local authority for the rest of the period during which the certificate has to run. We have no experience of any local authority which would first harass a proprietor of property to spend money upon repairs and then come along at the end of five years and order the demolition of the property. In view of the fact that this Amendment will tie the hands of a local authority in certain eventualities I ask the House not to accept it but to be satisfied with the
assurance that local authorities generally are not at all likely to act in the unreasonable manner which, by implication, the new Clause suggests.

Mr. MacROBERT: It is quite true that something might happen during a period of two years to make a house unfit for human habitation, but while we appreciate the force of that argument the purpose of the new Clause is clear. We think that something should be done on these lines. We are not tied to this particular form of words and I hope the Under-Secretary will reconsider the matter and see if something can be done to meet the object of the proposal. We are quite prepared to withdraw this new Clause if the question is considered in another place.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: We are quite willing, without committing ourselves in any shape or form, to see whether it is practicable to meet the views which have been put forward.

Mr. McKINLAY: I regret that the Secretary of State has given even a modified undertaking to consider this new Clause. I can promise him that so far as some of us on these benches are concerned we will not listen for a moment to an Amendment moved in another place which has in view the object of hon. Members opposite. I have had considerable experience of trying to put such property as is indicated in this proposal into a state of repair. It is no use trying to perpetuate rotten property by propping it up here and there, and I regret that the Government have not indicated without any qualification at all that they are absolutely opposed to the new Clause. It is an insiduous attempt to alter the basis of valuation in the matter of slum property. Owners are wanting market value for property which a housing authority has allowed them to retain for a period of two or five years, provided he carries out certain structural alterations. I can visualise what is going to happen. Take a vermin infested property. It is utterly impossible to eradicate vermin by the simple process of spending money in trying to repair the property. I have had some experience of this type of property; I question whether some hon. Members opposite have had that experience. They desire that the property owner, at the expiration
of this period, should get the market value. Quite frankly, as one who has always viewed with suspicion anything emanating from the other side of the House, I think that this is another insidious attempt not only to bolster up old property but by a side wind to get something which they cannot get by the Bill itself.

Mr. STEPHEN: I hope the Government will not accept this new Clause. It is a little hole which will allow many difficulties to occur in the future in regard to slum clearance schemes and improvement schemes. It seems reasonable and fair on the face of it, but in effect it will interfere seriously with many slum clearance schemes. It is true that if a dwelling house is compulsorily closed or demolished during the period of the currency of the certificate that compensation at market value shall be paid. That is not at the expiration of the certificate but during the currency of the certificate, but it may be that during that time the conditions of the surrounding property have made it absolutely necessary to go in for a bigger scheme of improvement. In that case this new Clause is going to add to the expenses of any slum clearance scheme. If this market value, which may be much exaggerated, and often is, has to be paid it will add to the expense of the scheme. I hope the Government will not give way in connection with this new Clause. There are sufficient difficulties in the way of the Bill as it stands at the present time. As the Under-Secretary of State said yesterday, there are many local authorities that are not too keen about proceeding with schemes. By means of this new Claue, an instrument would be put into the hands of a reactionary local authority which would tend to make the Measure nugatory in that particular district. The Government will be well advised if they do not accept the new Clause.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think the Government are right in agreeing to the suggestion that they should reconsider the whole matter. I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay) and, if I may say so with the greatest respect, I do not think he quite appreciates the situation. This new Clause insists upon two things. The local authority must
satisfy themselves that the building can be repaired, reconstructed or reconditioned. I cannot imagine any local authority asking anybody to recondition a building in the state described by my hon. Friend. The second essential is this, that the local authority, if they require an owner of property to reconstruct, repair or recondition certain property, must be satisfied that the property is thoroughly repaired, reconstructed or reconditioned. It is only when these two essentials have been brought into play that the owner can get his certificate for two, three or five years. The market value, as the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) pointed out, is payable only within the time that comes in the certificate. I do not think there is anything reprehensible in that. If the hon. Member for Partick will reconsider the situation, I think he will be satisfied that there is nothing wrong in his Government promising reconsideration of this particular point. I am very glad that the Government have taken the view that they will reconsider it. I was sorely tempted to support the new Clause if it went to a Division. I am hopeful that by the time the Bill comes back from another place, the Government will have satisfied their own supporters, as I am sure they will satisfy the country, that there is a good deal of fairness in the suggestion underlying the new Clause.

Miss LEE: I am afraid that I do not altogether share the sentiments as to whether local authorities would abuse such power if it were placed in their hands. There is a danger of local authorities, being very human institutions, finding that there is a local property owner or someone else whom they want to help. It is easier for influence to be used in a small local neighbourhood than on a wider scale. Apart from that point, the whole thing that impresses me is that if property is so bad that it is on the verge of being condemned, it would require more than the property owner would get in rents to put it into a reasonable state of repair. I think that hon. Members opposite, inclined to be kind to the slum property owner, are simply prolonging the agony and putting off the evil moment when that property owner will be forced to part with his spoiled goods. In the interests of the slum property owner, and particularly in the interests
of the people who may be given this inferior substitute for a new house, and to ensure that the local authority has no back door by which it can get out of responsibility to build new houses, I think the Committees would be very wise to reject such an Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: I would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to recall the fact that in Committee, when this matter was discussed, we arrived at what I understood to be the arrangement that wherever this type of property come under review, no repairs should be carried out unless under the authority of the local authority. If the local authority takes an area and calls it a slum area or a clearance area, any repairs or alterations that are sanctioned must come from the local authority. When this Bill becomes an Act, the full control will rest with the local authority as to whether any repairs of any kind can be carried out. If that point could be cleared up, we might get nearer to a settlement of the matter at issue.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Standard of re-housing accommodation.)

For the purposes of the provisions of this Act which relate to the obligations of a local authority with respect to re-housing, or which relate to Government contributions to the expenses of local authorities in providing accommodation available for displaced persons, the Minister shall, unless he is satisfied that owing to special circumstances some other standard of accommodation should be adopted, treat a house containing two bedrooms as providing accommodation for four persons, a house containing three bedrooms as providing accommodation for five persons, and a house containing four bedrooms as providing accommodation for seven persons.—[Miss Bathbone.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope that it will not be considered a presumption on the part of a representative of an English constituency to move a new Clause in the Scottish Housing Bill. My object is simply to give the House an opportunity of considering whether this new Clause, which is word for word the same as one introduced in the corresponding portion of the English Bill by the Minister of Health, would be an improvement
in the Scottish Bill. The similar Clause was introduced by the Minister of Health in the English Bill to meet a criticism which proceeded from the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. D. Simon). The criticism put forward was that the real value of the Bill with regard to the replacement of slums depends upon the value of the unit grant. The unit grant depends upon two factors. The first factor, as stated in Clause 23 of the Scottish Bill, depends upon the number of persons displaced from the slums, and the number of unit grants also depends upon
the number of persons of the working classes for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Department, been rendered available by the authority in new houses.
What exactly does that statement mean? It is obvious that the meaning of these words is, that the number of unit grants to which the local authority is entitled under that Clause depends entirely upon the estimate placed by the Ministry upon the housing accommodation made available in a given number of houses. Suppose, for example, a local authority dispossesses 100 persons in a particular area. It cannot claim 100 unit grants unless it can show not that it has rehoused this particular number of persons but that it has built new houses and made accommodation available for 100 persons. How many houses are required to do that? There, we come across a factor which is left entirely vague by the Bill as it stands.
The difficulty that may arise is this: At present the Minister may take the view that, say, 100 two-bedroomed houses would mean accommodation for 400 persons. Suppose that a little later a different Minister is in power and he wants to economise, without letting it be known that he is economising. The path is left open for him to do that. He can simply say that he proposes in future to calculate that a two-bedroomed house makes accommodation for only one and a-half persons. Immediately, the number of unit grants that could be claimed on a given scheme would be diminished. I can imagine that if that economically-minded future Minister wanted to represent his action in the rosiest way he
would represent it as imposing a higher standard of housing accommodation. He could say: "I am not satisfied that a two-bedroomed house makes accommodation for four people. I want something better than that for the people of Scotland. I claim that a two-bedroomed house only makes accommodation available for three persons. That could be put forward as an improvement, whereas the actual fact would be that the local authority would have the number of unit grants that it could claim immediately cut down.
Since I put this new Clause upon the Order Paper, it has been pointed out to me that the Secretary of State for Scotland has promised something that is better than my new Clause. He has issued a White Paper which lays down a rather different standard of housing accommodation than that proposed in this new Clause. I did not receive a copy of that White Paper, and I can only speak from memory, but I understand that it takes as the unit not the number of bedrooms but the number of apartments, and it is so worked out that it would allow a larger number of unit grants to be claimed than that provided in my new Clause. I can well understand that the House may not wish to accept a new Clause, in the form in which I have put it down, which would diminish the number of grants promised in the White Paper, but I suggest that a moderate promise in a Statute is better than a more generous promise in a White Paper, which can be changed. A Statute is a Statute, and we know that a Statute remains from Ministry to Ministry and from Parliament to Parliament, and that Ministers in succession accept the Statutes of their predecessors, and administer them. On the other hand, a White Paper can be changed. It does not give the proper basis of stability that is necessary for such a Bill as this, considering that the whole value of this Bill is going to depend upon the question as to what the unit grant is worth, and how many unit grants a local authority can claim.
Are hon. Members opposite prepared to leave it entirely to chance, to the passing mode of the moment of their successors, rather than know in the Bill what unit
grants can be claimed? And will not the Secretary of State for Scotland, even if he is not prepared to accept this new Clause as I have moved it, at least undertake that, just as England has been given security under the English Bill, and has been given what the Minister of Health himself described as a yardstick by which to measure the unit value of the accommodation which has been provided by the local authority so as to know what they are going to get in the way of unit grants, so the people of Scotland shall be provided with a similar yardstick, backed by the security of an Act of Parliament, and not be left to the security of a White Paper, which is here to-day and gone tomorrow.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. E. D. SIMON: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not wish to do more than emphasise what the hon. Lady the Member for English Universities (Miss Rath-bone) has made quite clear, that in the discussion on the English Bill there were reasons why it was thought desirable to insert a Clause analogous to this Clause. I should like to emphasise that this ratio which determines the size of the grants for houses for working-class tenants is the essense of the Whole Bill. Whether you give three, four, or five-unit grants per house determines, of course, the rent at which the house is to be let, and it is therefore of the utmost importance that local authorities should have some clear understanding of what grants they can get. The White Paper, I understand, already sets that forth quite clearly, but, as the hon. Lady has said, that is not binding upon the successors of the present Government, and there may be some danger that those successors will come into power before very long. It does therefore seem to be of the utmost importance, for the sake of continuity of administration and to ensure that there shall be adequate security for the local authority as regards the conversion ratio, that it shall be inserted in the Bill. While, perhaps, the Clause cannot be accepted in its present form, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider the matter and see whether he cannot insert a Clause giving effect to his own findings and making it binding not only on himself but
on his successors that they shall give the grants set out in the White Paper.

Mr. JOHNSTON: As both the hon. Members who have moved and seconded this new Clause have already said, the Clause in its present form is really inadmissible. The words are inappropriate. In the fourth line the words "the Minister shall" ought to be "the Department shall"; and on three occasions the word "bedrooms" is used where, with us, it should be "apartments"; so that, even, if we 6esired to accept this new Clause in principle, we could not possibly accept the wording of the Clause as it stands on the Paper. But, as the hon. Lady who moved the Clause said, we have already dealt with this question in another way. The question was dealt with, I understand, in Committee upstairs on the English Bill; but, after discussing the matter very fully indeed with the local authorities, and indeed with representatives of all parties in this House, including representatives of the two branches of the Opposition, we came to the conclusion that it would be far better that the Secretary of State for Scotland should issue a Scottish Office Paper, which would be available at the Vote Office, which would be sent to all local authorities and would be supplied to all the Scottish Members, and which would set out with greater elasticity and in more elaborate detail how it was proposed to operate the grants system in Scotland than would be possible in a perhaps more concise Clause in the Bill.
May I read to the hon. Lady the words we have used in the Scottish Office Paper governing the question of the standard of accommodation? I should like to send the hon. Lady and her Seconder a copy of this White Paper:
5. For the purpose of determining the number of persons for whom accommodation has been rendered available in new houses it is proposed to adopt the following standard:
A house of two apartments will normally be regarded as rendering accommodation available for three persons; a house of three apartments for five persons; a house of four apartments for seven persons; and so on.
6. The adoption of that standard does not mean that in no case will houses of the sizes mentioned be occupied by more than the number of persons stated. The actual number of persons to be allowed in each house will be a matter for the local authority
to determine. For example, no objection would be taken if, say, a married couple and two children under 10 years of age were accommodated in a house of two apartments. But for the purpose of arriving at the amount of grant that will be payable the above standard will be adopted in the determination of the number of persons for whom accommodation has been 'rendered available'.
The result of the consultations which we had not only with local authorities—and I do not wish to speak for them—but also with hon. Members who were taking an active interest in this Bill on behalf of the Opposition, was that this method provided greater elasticity in administration than the method adopted in the English Bill, and that the apprehensions of the hon. Lady that, while this might be right enough under the present Administration, the Scottish Office Paper might not suffice if the present Secretary of State for Scotland relinquished his position and some other Secretary of State reigned in his stead, were unfounded. We have the assurance of his potential successors in both sections of the Opposition that they agree with it. The suggestion in this White Paper is binding for any particular scheme which may be adopted. If, subsequently, a Secretary of State for Scotland chose to amend this method, first of all he would have tremendous difficulty with the local authorities, because no local authority, presumably, would build under a worse scale than this; secondly, he would have tremendous trouble with this House; then he would have great dissatisfaction in Scotland; and he would have no house building. No scheme would be adopted in future unless it were upon this basis.

Miss RATHBONE: May I ask whether the sanction of this House would be required before a fresh instruction could be issued?

Mr. JOHNSTON: No; that is what I am pointing out. We already have greater elasticity under this method, and no worse allocation of the grants system would be accepted than that which is contained in this White Paper. Every fresh scheme will be treated by local authorities on its merits. If a local authority comes to a bargain with the Government on this basis to build 100 houses, that bargain will stand for those 100
houses. If it comes forward next week with another scheme for 100 houses and is met by the then Secretary of State for Scotland with the statement that the terms have been altered and there are now new terms, then the local authority will not go on with its fresh scheme, but its old scheme will stand for the first 100 houses and the bargain which they have made will be kept; so that the apprehensions of the hon. Lady and of her seconder as to what might happen under some future Secretary of State for Scotland are, we think, without foundation.

Mr. SIMON: If I may interpose for a moment, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland himself said that, if the new Secretary of State put forward different ratios, the local authorities would stop building. That is exactly what we are afraid of, and we are asking the Government to make that impossible.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I point out that it is precisely to encourage building that we have asked for this greater elasticity, and it is precisely because they think it is the method best calculated to encourage building that the local authorities, who have to deal with the question, and who, besides that, know the situation best, did come to an agreement with us that this form of words would suit their conditions and the situation better than a Clause in the Bill, so that the Department will not be tied merely to three unit grants for two-apartment houses if it sees good reason afterwards to increase the grants. Let me give the hon. Lady an illustration: Take the case of a man and his wife with twins—very young children; are those people to get only a three unit housel? We must have greater elasticity in this matter; and, when I assure hon. Members that we have actually had a Treasury assent to this greater elasticity, I trust that hon. Members for English constituencies will not seek to worsen the conditions which we have already secured for Scotland.

Miss RATHBONE: May I ask one further question? Did I not hear the Under-Secretary yesterday again and again blame the slackness of local authorities in Scotland for the great falling off in the number of houses which have recently been built?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Lady did hear me say, and I am prepared to repeat it on appropriate occasions, that there are a large number of local authorities in Scotland in whose areas no houses whatever have been built, and we have noted those local authorities and hope to take powers to deal with them; but on no occasion did I ever utter any word of criticism of the bulk of the local authorities, nor of the association called the National Housing and Town Planning Asociation, which represents, shall I say, the more advanced, more progressive, and more intelligent local authorities. On the contrary, we have been working in close agreement with them.

Major ELLIOT: My two hon. Friends who have moved and seconded this new Clause and with whose object I have great sympathy, should, I think, consider whether they can see their way to withdraw the Clause after the explanation given by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. In the first place, let me point out that here we are dealing with a country which has shown an active interest in slum clearance, as compared with England which has shown no interest in it whatever. We in Scotland have done about 10 times as much slum clearance as England has done, so that we have a certain amount of knowledge of the way in which the thing operates in practice; and we are doing considerably more municipal housing in Scotland than is being done in England. It is quite true that there is more villa housing in England than there is in Scotland, but that is entirely due to private enterprise and to local authorities building more villa houses. In Scotland, they are building more slum clearance houses, and have much more experience of how the Acts should be operated than people in England have. Furthermore, so far as I understand the position of my two hon. Friends, their whole point is, "Let us have a moderate provision in the Statute rather than an excellent provision in a White Paper."

Mr. SIMON: No, let us have an excellent provision in the Statute.

Major ELLIOT: No, that is not accurate, because the provision of the new Clause which has been moved is very much worse than the quotation which we have heard from the White Paper, and the question is whether we should accept
a worsening of our position in the Statute to get the greater security of a statutory enactment rather than the less security but greater cash of the White Paper. An ancient poet said:
Ah, take the Cash, and let the Credit go.
I think that we might reasonably adopt that attitude in this case. Public opinion in Scotland watches with great closeness what is done in this House and elsewhere. There is a powerful Press devoting its attention very closely to local affairs. There are numbers of municipal authorities that live very close to the headquarters of the Department which has to govern them, and there are Members of this House who can be stirred almost too readily to bring forward any grievance. Any Secretary of State who went about to modify this promise would have a difficult task—a task as difficult as the repealing of the Statute would be. We regard the promise as quite as binding as anything that can be done by a statutory declaration. Of course no Parliament can bind future Parliaments, and therefore it would be quite open to any Secretary of State to make this bargain as regards future houses. As regards past houses they are not in any way helped or hindered by putting this in the Statute. The fact is that once a unit grant has been agreed for a particular set of schemes, it is as inviolable as the interest on war loan, and perhaps more inviolable, if the views of some hon. Members opposite were enforced. Any future Secretary of State would run counter to well-organised public opinion if he ventured to take such a step as has been suggested. The elasticity referred to has commended itself to Members of Parliament and to the local authorities, who have had a considerable experience of slum clearance work and have repeatedly spoken to us of their desire for greater elasticity rather than less.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I hope any hon. Friend will withdraw this new Clause, because we had a great deal of discussion about the basis of this grant in the early stages of the Scottish Standing Committees, and there were very delicate negotiations about it. I do not think that at any time in the discussions on the English Bill I saw any White Papers issued by local authorities
comparable with those of some of the Scottish local authorities, notably Edinburgh, after their examination of the original proposals. It was because of that examination that we got the present White Paper, and I hope that it will be allowed to stand. It should ensure that each successive Government will keep the bargain unless a better one can be made.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I would like to make a few comments on the speech of the Under-Secretary of State. He referred to consultations with the more advanced, the more progressive, and the more intelligent authorities. It is unfortunate that there is no means of consulting some of the authorities which are at least as intelligent, and in their intentions at least as advanced, as those represented by the Association to which the Under-Secretary referred. I refer to the smaller and struggling authorities with very low rateable values, where the conditions are very hard. I wish that the Under-Secretary could devise what none of his predecessors have devised—some means of bringing them into consultation upon these important matters.
I see from the White Paper that a very wide latitude is taken with regard to the number of people who can be accommodated in a house. It is said that a married couple with two children under 10 years of age might be accommodated in two apartments. But suppose that the children are just under 10 years of age and the people remain in the House for 10 or 15 years. The children will then have become over 10 years of age. If you have two children who were very young it is at least probable that they are only the first two of a series, and in such a case it would be most imprudent to put a married couple into such a house. It might soon lead to overcrowding. On this issue I join with the Under-Secretary of State and others in hoping that the Clause will be withdrawn. The Under-Secretary met the Committee upstairs fairly and courteously. He has tackled the lions of the Treasury and tackled them very successfully, and I am sure that all parties are grateful to him for what he has done. As has been said, we would all join together in Parliament in future years to see that the utmost is made of this provision.

Miss RATHBONE: In view of all the explanations I feel that, with the permission of the Seconder, I can only ask to withdraw this new Clause. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on the good terms that he has made with the Treasury, while still regretting that he has not given the terms fixity in the provisions of the Statute.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Clearance orders.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 16 to 18.
In Standing Committee an Amendment was moved to delete this proviso, but at that time we could not accept the Amendment because there were cases where there was a multiplicity of owners. One case was mentioned of 30 proprietors in one building. We had no machinery in the Bill at that time for dealing with a large number of owners. If a large number of owners did not develop the site the local authority was left helpless. Frequently it might be impossible to induce the 30 proprietors to co-operate in a common purpose for the future development of the site. Since Clause 2 was discussed in Committee we have added Clause 5 to the Bill. Clause 5 gives the local authority power to purchase after 18 months have elapsed; if after 18 months have elapsed no development has taken place on the site, the local authority is given power to purchase. Now that Clause 5 is in the Bill there is no further necessity for including the proviso that it is now proposed to omit.

Mr. MacROBERT: I am not at all satisfied with the explanation of the Under-Secretary. I am certain that this Clause was well considered by those who drafted the Bill. I am equally certain that there will be administrative difficulties which cannot be properly met if this proviso is taken out. It was pointed out in Standing Committee to the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Welsh) who moved that the proviso should be left out, that there would be considerable administrative difficulty if it were omitted, and that was the reason why the Amendment was not carried. It was suggested that there might be 30 proprietors of one building. Suppose that some of theme were owners
of the ground floor, and some of the middle floor, and some of the top floor, and that they had common property in certain parts of the building and common interests in other parts. The Local Authority call upon the owners to demolish. Suppose that one owner is quite willing to obey the order, and is prepared to demolish, and he is the owner of the bottom part of the building. Is he entitled to pull down irrespective of the other proprietors?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The local authority can come in.

Mr. MacROBERT: That is my point. It means that the ordinary provisions of the Bill cannot apply to the case. The primary provision in this Clause is that the owner is to demolish. It is quite clear that the Under-Secretary thinks that the owners cannot be forced in any proper way to do it, and that there are bound to be difficulties. An order is given for 30 different owners to demolish. Some of the owners may not be there, and so on. Therefore, the result would be that the local authority would require to demolish. Take a case where you have 10 good owners and one bad owner, and you have one house which has been left in a bad condition. That particular case will fall under this Bill, I understand, because there is one house that is affected. If there were no dwelling-house defective in the building the question would not arise, because the building would be outside the scope of the Bill. But if you find one owner who has neglected his particular dwelling-house, you are going to force all the other good owners, who have kept their dwelling-houses up to scratch, to demolish, or the local authority will do so. You are going to interfere in that way with the good owners and leave them, it may be, with their site value. But what is the site value of the man who is on the top floor? How can you ascertain it?
The problem is really a very difficult one. You will have the greatest difficulty in finding out what the compensation will be as regards the different owners. There is no necessity for leaving out this proviso, because there is nothing to prevent the local authority from buying. If it is necessary for the good of the community that this particular part of the ground should be taken by the local authority for improvement, the authority
can purchase it. After all, in purchasing it there is not going to be any extravagant compensation, because that is safeguarded by Act of Parliament. Therefore, they would only require to pay what would be a proper price in the circumstances. But if the local authority is not going to purchase and if the property is to be demolished I cannot see how the question of compensating the different owners and all the different people having interests in the property is to be dealt with. I am perfectly certain that reasons such as that induced the framers of this Bill to include this proviso originally, and I think that the first thoughts of the Government on this matter were sound. I see no reason why these words should not be retained. I do not think that they will prevent the general purpose of the Bill from being achieved. The local authorities have the power to purchase. They have also the power of demolition without purchase. If a condition were made that in all cases where there were several owners purchase would be necessary I would not object to the omission of these lines. I do not see how you can possibly compensate a man for taking away his house by giving him the site value, particularly if he is the man who lives on the top flat. In his case the compensation would be very much in the air.

Mr. McKINLAY: Where it deserves to be.

Mr. MacROBERT: I do not see how that question can be dealt with unless a provision is made that in cases where there are several owners, the local authority will be required to purchase. There are provisions not only in this Bill but in the general Acts of Scotland to prevent an extravagant figure being given to a particular owner and if a particular owner happened to be one who had allowed his dwelling house to fall into disrepair and become unfit for human habitation, that person would be dealt with accordingly in the purchase price. There is no difficulty in that respect and I do not see any reason for this change of mind on the part of the Government. Although anything which comes from Paisley must command my respect I do not think that the Government ought to have been influenced by the arguments of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Welsh) and I think that the administrative
difficulties, which must have been in the minds of those who framed the Bill when they inserted these words, are insurmountable.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): I do not think that any real difficulty will arise if effect be given to this Amendment. It is true that, as the Bill was originally framed, this proviso was put in of set purpose, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Renfrew (Mr. MacRobert) must bear in mind that at that time Clause 5, Sub-section (1) was not in the Bill. The real reason for inserting this proviso in Clause 2 was the difficulty which was anticipated as regards the use of the land after demolition had taken place. That difficulty has now been removed by Clause 5, Sub-section (1), which gives power to a local authority at any time after the expiration of 18 months from the date on which the clearance order becomes operative, to purchase any part of the land which has not been or is not being used for building purposes or otherwise developed. Accordingly, if a clearance order has been made and if the various owners fail to agree as to the proper use to be made of the site, then the local authority can come in and purchase. No difficulty arises on that score, and that leaves only one other matter.
It is said that if this proviso were taken out of the Bill there would be very great difficulty in the case of the tenement buildings with which we are familiar in Scotland, where there are a great many owners in one building. I think the answer to that Objection is that in Scotland the tenements which are owned by several owners are in fact being abolished and that no difficulty arises. If a clearance order is made directing the demolition of a building, then, of course, it is quite obvious that the owners concerned in that order are compelled to put their heads together and to decide—it may be after consultation with the authority making the order—as to the best way of carrying out the order that has been made. I cannot help feeling that as regards the question of demolition, my right hon. and learned Friend is conjuring up difficulties which are not likely to arise in practice. We know from the experience which we have had that there
are no difficulties at all in practice in this connection, and this is a Measure upon which the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Welsh) can speak with first-hand knowledge. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: The speech of the Lord Advocate would have been more convincing were it not for the speech which he made in support of this proviso in Committee.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that at that time Clause 5, Sub-section (1) was not in the Bill.

Major ELLIOT: The House will perhaps allow me to read one or two sentences from the Lord Advocate's speech in Committee on this subject which seem to be still applicable:
The purpose of the proviso is to facilitate development. As the Committee know, under the tenement system in Scotland there may be in some cases as many as 20 or 30 different owners in one tenement all with interests more or less undefined in the site. Suppose you made a demolition order with regard to that tenement how is it to be carried out? Are 20 or 30 people to take picks and shovels and set out and do it? It seems to me that practical difficulties would arise.
The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Welsh) then made an interjection, and the Lord Advocate continued:
I do not suggest for a moment that it is beyond the wit of man to devise a method of dealing with it. But it seems to me that the method would be cumbrous and if applied generally that it would be unworkable, because, remember, this Bill will apply for the most part to tenement property, and, accordingly, I think it, is absolutely essential to hvae this proviso if the Bill is not to be unworkable in a most important respect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 13th May, 1930; cols. 95 and 96.]

Mr. JAMES BROWN: Second thoughts are best.

Major ELLIOT: Perhaps in this case, third thoughts may be three times as good. I suggest that the Lord Advocate having devoted the whole weight of his study to the proviso and having defended it on the ground that if it were not in the Bill the Bill would be unworkable in a most important respect, we must leave Cæsar to reply to Cæsar in this matter.

Mr. JAMES WELSH: (Paisley)
I wish to thank the Secretary of State for Scotland
for dealing with this point and I think I can assure him from practical experience that he will find no difficulty in making this Clause workable without the proviso. My main objection to it was that I thought it wrong, when a clearance order was made, to draw distinctions as to whether property had one owner or more than one owner. I may remind the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) of the fact that he furnished a most substantial argument in favour of the deletion of this proviso when he mentioned the fact that any proprietor who wanted to evade the inclusion of his property in a clearance order had merely to convey half of it, even for a temporary period, to someone else.

Major ELLIOT: May I point out that the Lord Advocate dealt with that point also and proved that it would be impossible to defeat the intentions of the Bill in such a way.

Mr. WELSH: I think we had better leave the lawyers out of this debate. I think we can get on better by treating it as a matter of common sense and I put it to anyone, with any knoweldge of the working of slum clearance schemes, if it is not an unjustifiable proposal to say that under no conditions must property with more than one proprietor be included in a clearance order. We have had considerable experience in dealing with these schemes; we have come across quite a number of properties held by more than one proprietor and we have never yet had any real difficulty in dealing with the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that where the building belongs to more than one owner any sum recoverable or payable by the authority under this sub-section shall be recoverable from or payable to the several owners in such proportions as the authority may determine.
Now that provision has been made for including in clearance orders properties held by several different owners, provision has also to be made in cases where the local authority steps in and demolishes the building for the apportionment of the expenses of the demolition among the several owners, and also the apportionment of such sums as may
remain in the hands of the local authority in respect of the proceeds from materials and so forth. This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to which the House has just agreed.

Mr. MacROBERT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "authority may determine," and to insert instead thereof the words:
parties may agree or, failing agreement, as shall be determined by an arbiter nominated by the parties or, failing such nomination, as shall be nominated lay the sheriff.
I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to accept this Amendment to his Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Treatment of clearance area.)

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 4, line 43, at the end, to insert the words:
And further provided that in any case where a local authority has acquired land from the owner thereof by compulsory purchase for the purposes of this Act, and do not require to use the same for the purposes of re-housing the working classes or the laying-out of open spaces, but intend to sell or otherwise dispose of such land or any portion thereof for any other purpose, they shall be bound before doing so to make intimation in writing to the previous owner of such land or his legal representatives of their intention, and to offer the said land to said proprietor, or his legal representatives, on repayment by him or them of the sum originally received by the owner from the local authority as compensation therefor, and if within thirty days after receipt of an offer to that effect the former owner, or his legal representatives, agree to accept the same, the local authority shall thereupon re-convey the said land to the said owner, or his legal representatives, on the terms of the said offer.
This Amendment deals with the point as to the use of land taken over by a local authority for housing purposes, and subsequently not used for those purposes, and the suggestion is that if the local authority are not going to use it for the purposes which alone gave them the right to claim it, that is to say, that on the land there were situated insanitary houses which it was desired to replace by sanitary houses, they should give the owner of the land the option of
repurchase. We argued this at some length upstairs in Committee, and I do not wish to do more than bring it before the House again.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, this point was adequately discussed in Committee upstairs, and I think that my recollection is right that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends, after that discussion, saw fit to withdraw their Amendment. I take it that they are backing an outside horse now. There is a point of reason in the Amendment, namely, that if a proprietor has his land taken, and subsequently the local authorities do not use it for housing purposes, they might in fairness offer to resell it to the proprietor from whom they have taken it. May I again point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends, however, that in general on such land there are insanitary buildings; and it has not been used to the best social purposes. I put it no higher than that. The proprietor has allowed his property to get into an insanitary condition, and he is lucky that we are now producing a Bill which gives him at least housing site value. Nobody will get less than housing site value for his land, and nobody is entitled to get any more. Housing is the purpose to which he has used the land, and no one is entitled to any more.
If a proprietor has had insanitary property on his land, the land may, as a result of the demolition of the insanitary houses, increase in value. Are we to take it that the authority, after perhaps going to the expense of demolishing the houses and of having a clearance area, are to hand this land back at its increased value? The whole doctrine of pre-emption has gone by the board. It is bad social business to tie the hands of the local authority and say that they must offer to resell to a proprietor land which that proprietor has misused by allowing it to bear slum property. I can imagine circumstances where it is absolutely necessary that the proprietor should not get his land offered to him. I gave an instance in Committee where the Corporation of Glasgow, in a district which the hon. and gallant Gentleman
knows, desires to clear slums. If they cleared these slums, they might not desire to build houses on the site, and might indeed want to sell the site again to the Clyde Trust. It might be in the public interest, indeed, that some Corporation department or public utility corporation in Glasgow should use the land for industrial or social purposes; but if this Amendment were carried, it would tie the hands of the local authority and compel them to offer this property for resale to a proprietor who, presumably, had misused it by allowing slums to grow up. Because no injustice whatever will be suffered by the proprietor of the land, who will get at least housing site value for it, the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. MacROBERT: This Amendment was proposed in Committee, and the Under-Secretary, no doubt impressed by the arguments he then heard, said that he would refer the matter to the Law Officers. I would like to know what has been the result of that reference. The position is not as indicated by the Under-Secretary, that we think we are backing an outsider. This is a genuine and real Amendment. If the argument of the Under-Secretary were correct, I agree that it is a bad Amendment. If you were dealing only with the case of owners who had misused their property, as he suggested, I would probably agree with him, but we are not dealing with such a case now. We are dealing with land which is taken because of the narrowness of the streets. There is no fault of the owner who happens to buy property in a particular street which is too narrow. The same result would follow from property which was purchased by the local authority, and which had no insanitary dwelling houses on it at all. Under this Bill, as I understand, local authorities have power when purchasing certain insanitary buildings to purchase compulsorily other buildings which are not insanitary.

Mr. JOHNSTON: At market value.

Mr. MacROBERT: Exactly, at, market value at that particular date, with certain conditions under various Acts of Parliament which do not give them the full market value. They do not get the value in the open market by reason of certain statutory restrictions. Apart
from that, the point is, why should local authorities be allowed to deal in land in that way and make a profit? A land owner may have two properties; on one he may suffer a great loss by reason of the action of the local authority, and if there is any profit going on the other property, why should the local authority make it? Why should they get it both ways? They give a small price for one property, and as regards the other, they take it and go into the open market and then find that there is a demand for that particular locality for some other purpose, it may be a garage or a cinema. Wily should the local authority have this advantage? They did not buy it in the open market. No question of pre-emption arises here, because they take the land compulsorily. I know that the view of some hon. Members opposite is that a landowner should have no rights at all. Meanwhile, that is not the position of the Government Front Bench, and that is not the view presented in this Bill. The Bill proposes to recognise the rights of owners, and we are taking the Bill upon that footing. That being so, I suggest that this Amendment, Which was moved in Committee, which was pressed there, and which was to be referred to the Law Officers, should be accepted. I ask the Government to reconsider the position, for I am sure that if they consulted the Law Officers, they might come to a different view.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We did consult them.

Mr. MacROBERT: It is suggested that this Amendment is the result of second thoughts on our part. The last Amendment from the Government, however, was entirely a matter of second thoughts, because they completely changed their attitude from their attitude in Committee. Second thoughts sometimes are the best, and in this particular case, we think that this is a good and fair Amendment to make.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 5.—(Power of local authority to purchase cleared land which owners have failed to redevelop.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, after the word "sale," to insert the word "feu."
This is a drafting Amendment, which meets the point made by the late Lord Advocate in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Treatment of improvement area.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, to leave out the words "repairs thereto," and to insert instead thereof the words "works thereon."
This is a verbal Amendment. Works required for the purpose of rendering a house fit for human habitation under Part II of the Bill may not be limited to repairs, and therefore the expression used should be "works thereon" instead of "repairs thereto." Generally, the works will be in the nature of repairs, but this may not be so in every case.

6.0 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: This Amendment extends the liability of the owners. It may be right that this liability should be extended, but in all these cases we are extending the burden which will fall upon the owners. Therefore, it is very necessary for us to take note of these things, because it is by a process of small additional burdens like this that property owning becomes unremunerative, and has become so in Scotland. We are finding ourselves in a position where private enterprise has disappeared in Scotland, and though we have more municipal housing enterprise in Scotland than in England, our position, measured by new houses, is worse. It is so, in fact; but we will develop that point at another stage of the Bill. There is a danger in piling too much on to the shoulders of property owners, because it eventually leads to a position in which even repairs are not carried out, and the property falls into such disrepair that the last state of the tenants is worse than the first.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I trust that the hon. and gallant Member will retain his political perorations for the Third Reading. He knows that this is merely a drafting Amendment, and that Clause 14 defines very carefully the limitations which are imposed upon the owners.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Application in improvement area of Rent and Mortgage interest (Restrictions) Acts.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 16, to leave out the word "a," and to insert instead thereof the word "the."
I trust that the hon. and gallant Member and his friends will not see anything sinister against property owners in this simple Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: I think it quite unnecessary that the Under-Secretary should rebuke me and ask me to keep my political perorations for another stage of the Bill. I can only say to him that if he will refrain from trailing his coat along the floor, it may be better for both of us.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Obligations of local authority with respect to re-housing.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out the words "If the Department so require."
The purpose of this Amendment, together with the small Amendment which follows, is to bring the Bill into complete accord with the English Bill upon this point. The obligations upon a local authority who have passed either a clearance resolution or an improvement resolution to rehouse displaced persons should not depend upon a specific requirement of the Department but should be automatic.

Major ELLIOT: It seems to be quite unnecessary that we should try to bring this Bill into harmony with the English Bill.

Mr. McSHANE: Degrading the Bill to the English standard!

Major ELLIOT: I hope we shall not have to do that; we have not fallen as far as that. I am a little uneasy about the proposal. The Clause left a certain amount of discretion with the Department. The leaving cut of the words of the Amendment will mean that it will be compulsory on the local authority under all conditions. This proposal was not brought up when the Bill was in
Committee and is apparently put forward now only in order to bring the Bill into harmony with the English Measure. I hope this will not be a precedent, and that we shall not be asked to accept other Amendments simply to bring matters into harmony with the English Bill. I am quite content to accept this Amendment if it is made on its merits, but if it has been introduced to bring the Bill into accord with the English Measure I should be inclined to object. I hope I may have an assurance that the Under-Secretary is not seeking to make the two Bills identical, letter for letter, comma for comma.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member has not observed any undue precipitancy on my part towards bringing the Scottish Bill into line with the English Measure, and that he knows perfectly well that we should propose no Amendment except for the purpose of making the Bill a more efficient Measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 23, after the word "operations," insert the words "if any.".—[Mr. Johnston.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Validity and date of operation of clearance orders and compulsory purchase orders.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. JOHNSTON: In page 9, line 35, after the word "purpose," to insert the words "by summary petition."

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not propose to move this Amendment, as we intend to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour).

Mr. MacROBERT: I beg to move, in page 9, line 36, after the word "Session," to insert the words:
in the form and under the procedure provided by Act of Sederunt.
As the Under-Secretary is accepting this Amendment, it will not be necessary for me to explain it at any length. I took exception to the words "by summary petition" because that is not a form of process known to the Court of Session, though it is known to the Sheriff Court. The Amendment is
designed to provide that the Court of Session by Act of Sederunt may themselves state what particular form the application shall take. By a subsequent Amendment I have provided that the application shall be dealt with in a summary manner. This will secure the object of the Movers of the original Amendment, and my Amendment is, perhaps, in a more accurate form.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 36, at the end, insert the words:
(i) the application shall be dealt with in a summary manner."—[Mr. MacRobert.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Assessment of compensation in respect of land purchased compulsorily and of insanitary premises required to be demolished.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 10, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in the case of dwelling-houses or other premises erected after the passing of this Act specified in a compulsory purchase order which are injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets.
The Amendment has been altered slightly from the form in which it appears on the Paper by the insertion of the words "specified in a compulsory purchase order."

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the words "erected after the passing of this Act."
We have no objection to the additional words which have been inserted by the Government, but we think these other words ought to be omitted. The Government must give a certain amount of consideration to the claim that quite sanitary property which is taken over merely on account of the narrowness or bad arrangement of a street should not be put on the same footing as insanitary property erected after the passing of this Measure. If anybody is doing an injury to the community it is the man who nowadays builds property so as to accentuate the narrowness of streets or a bad arrangement of houses. In the old days, and in Scotland particularly, streets were made narrow and crooked in many cases for the purpose of defence, among other historical reasons. Those who built them
built according to the town planning ideas of the time and were committing no crime. In many towns adjacent to the frontier of the old enemy any landowner who built wide and open streets would have been vigorously attacked and prosecuted for not keeping the streets narrow and so denying access to the enemies of the town. [Interruption.] "The old enemy" requires no explanation, except to anybody who comes from some other country.
This is a point of very real importance. In many cases clearance schemes have been undertaken as a town improvement, and in such cases the property affected should not have attached to it not merely the financial but the moral stigma attaching to a slum landlord. Many of us know old property which occupies a place at the knuckle or elbow of a street which it may be highly desirable to clear away, but the owner would have every reason to complain if he were called a slum landlord. If after the passing of this Bill, however, a man were to erect a building at the elbow of a narrow street, knowing full well that sooner or later it would have to be cleared away and that it would acquire what was a nuisance value, his action could not be commended but ought to be condemned. If this Amendment be not accepted, we shall be penalising the good man and recompensing the bad.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: One point that strikes me about this is that if a man has built property in a narrow and congested street he will be exempt from the provisions that are to apply to other slum property owners; because he has built in a congested part of the town he is to secure better recompense than the other man. I think the man who dliberately builds on a site of that kind should not be treated any better than the man who already has property in a narrow and confined area. There may be some explanation of the distinction, but I do not follow it, and I hope the Under-Secretary will reconsider the point. I think I could argue that the owner of the old property should get no better treatment. All I am concerned about is that, in
future, owners of property on bad sites should not get any advantage over other owners. As far as I understand this provision, a narrow street, because it is narrow and congested, and ill-lighted, can be certified as a slum area because the congestion is bad and detrimental to health. A particular house may be fairly decent as to its condition, but there is congestion around it. A person cleared from an area in those circumstances gets another house provided under the slum clearance order. As far as I can understand this proposal, it refers only to houses built in the future.

Mr. JOHNSTON: This Amendment simply deals with cases where a property has been maintained adequately by the owners and kept in good repair, but where through the laxity of the local authorities narrow streets have been permitted to be formed adjacent to that property. The Amendment is so framed that where this man's property is condemned solely because of the bad arrangements of the local authorities in permitting narrow streets, we are taking powers in future to see that in those circumstances an owner should be treated differently from the man next door, who may have allowed his property to get into disrepair and into an insanitary condition. I feel sure that that proposal will appeal to everybody as being reasonable.
The Opposition seek to apply that differentiation to the past as well as to the future, and the Government say that that is not desirable. Our principal reason for adopting this course is that in all the legislation on this subject since 1919 the fact has been faced. It is the law now. A man who owns such a cottage as I have described in a congested area has had his property depreciated by the fact that he lives in that area, and, consequently, his property has a diminished value due to that. An owner such as I have referred to should have the benefit of this proviso, but the man who has bought property in a congested area as a speculation, thinking that the local authority will ultimately have to take over his property, should not get an added value for that reason. Local authorities should not be called upon to pay an added value to the value which
property has had since 1919. In practice, the local authorities in the past have not dealt ungenerously, unfairly, or unjustly with the proprietors of the imaginary small cottage surrounded by the narrow street. Local authorities have not dealt ungenerously with cases of that kind, and they have purchased that class of property at its market value. The Government know of no case where such a proprietor has been dealt with ungenerously, and we think it would be wrong to introduce into an Act of Parliament a proviso that the local authority shall be compelled to pay compensation for property which may have been purchased as a speculation with the full knowledge that the narrow streets around that property render it likely that it will have to be demolished.
We think it wrong that the owner in that case should have exceptional treatment. If the local authorities do their duty in the future, there will be no narrow streets, and the proprietors will see that local authorities do not set up narrow streets. There is an awakening public conscience and public opinion on this question, and the local authorities will prevent narrow streets being created in the future. We cannot accept this Amendment because of the administrative difficulties which it would cause, and because we believe it might lead to speculations in buying and selling property in order to get an increased value. We have gone so far as to say that in future people who have erected property, and have had that property depreciated by narrow streets, shall be treated differently from those who have purchased the property in the full knowledge that their property would increase in value.

Mr. MacROBERT: I understand that this Amendment has been put down by the Government as a concession to the Opposition. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has stated that in his opinion the local authorities in the future will not allow narrow streets to be constructed. While we are much obliged to the Government for putting forward this so-called concession which has been very ingeniously framed, it really amount to nothing. Nevertheless, we thank the Government for making this concession, and we are really more indebted to the Under-Secretary for the statement that he will look into the matter to see if
something can be introduced in another place to meet the point which we have raised. We thank the Government for the statement that they will see whether something substantial can be done to meet the ease of hardship arising of owners who have held their property for a period before 1919.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I wish to point out that there is property in the smaller towns and burghs which has been held not merely for 10 years or even for 40 years. There is a great deal of house property which has been handed down for generations and possibly for centuries, and it is obvious that in those days narrow streets were an advantage and nobody thought of street planning. It seems to me very difficult to understand the desire of the Government to differentiate in their treatment of those who have bought property in narrow streets for speculative purposes and owners who have inherited old property dating from long ago. We must remember that the Government are recognising the value of historic buildings and the amenites of the town. We have inserted a Clause providing that local authorities shall have power to protect historical associations, some of which are to be found in old and narrow streets. I think that the Government should extend this concession to the people who are responsible for house property that may be of the old and picturesque kind, and which would have been pulled down years ago had it not been picturesque. It may be that a considerable cost has been incurred by the owner in regard to this class of property.
It is not always easy or by any means inexpensive to modernise some of these old buildings. The walls are very thick, and, if you want to increase the size of the windows, as it may well be necessary to do, you have to cut through very thick walls, which costs much more than in a modern and perhaps rather jerrybuilt house. I would, therefore, press the Government to remember how much house property of this kind there may be in Scotland that has been held for a very long time and has picturesque associations, which are, perhaps, largely responsible for the fact that it is in existence to-day. I must further say that I am unconvinced by what the Under-Secretary said as to local authorities not
having dealt harshly with owners of property of this kind, because, as I have said, I think that property of this kind may be largely in the smaller burghs, and, although we know that some of our big cities have been doing a good deal in the way of slum clearance in the last few years, there has not been very much of that kind done by the smaller burghs, and, therefore, this situation has hardly arisen to any considerable extent. Finally is it not the duty of the Government to give a lead to local authorities in the matter of fair dealing with owners who, admittedly, have kept their property in good repair, and who may not be in any degree responsible for the fact that these houses are situated in narrow streets?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Noble Lady asks us to give a lead to local authorities to deal fairly with the proprietor of good property which is surrounded by badly arranged streets. Does the Noble Lady know of any case in the last 10 years in which a local authority has dealt unfairly with the proprietor of such property? We know of none.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I did not suggest that local authorities had done so, but I said that, because local authorities in the smaller burghs had not done very much in the way of slum clearance, I did not think that the situation had arisen.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Power of focal authority to order repair of insanitary house.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, after the word "representation," to insert the words "or a report by their sanitary inspector."
This Amendment is put down to meet the pledge given in Committee on the point that the sanitary inspector ought to be brought in to deal with insanitary property. We have put down a series of Amendments dealing with this point.

Major ELLIOT: We have no objection to this Amendment, although, as we pointed out at the beginning of the Committee stage, we think that it is really unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Enforcement of notice requiring execution of repairs.)

Amendments made: In page 12, line 41, leave out the words "of repair."

In page 13, line 43, after the word "by," insert the word "weekly."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

CLAUSE 16.—(Power of local authority to order demolition or closing of in-sanitary house.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 17, after the word "representation," insert the words "or a report by their sanitary inspector."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Power of local authority to acquire and repair certain houses.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 17, after the word "house," insert the word "compulsorily."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

CLAUSE 22.—(Duties of local authorities to review housing conditions in their districts and to frame proposals.)

Amendments made: In page 20, line 25, leave out the words "the town council of every burgh," and insert instead thereof the words "every local authority."

In line 33, leave out the word "burgh," and insert instead thereof the word "district."

In line 35, leave out Sub-section (3).—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Government contributions to expenses of local authorities in providing accommodation available for displaced persons, etc.)

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 21, line 25, at the end, to insert the words "at a cost approved by the Department."

Major ELLIOT: This Amendment raises a point of some substance, and we should be glad if we could have some explanation of it. This Clause is the all-important financial Clause. It has turned up here under an alias in a place different from its previous place in the Bill, but it is still the financial Clause for all that. We are dealing with the point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and by the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. D. Simon),
that is to say, the formula on which the grant is to be based. The proviso to Subsection (2) says:—
Provided that the number of persons to be taken into account in calculating such contribution shall not exceed the number of persons of the working classes for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Department, been rendered available by the authority in new houses.
and the White Paper issued by the Government says what that formula will amount to. We are now asked to add to this proviso a further proviso that the accommodation must have been provided at a cost approved by the Department. Is there any necessity for the introduction of these words? Is it meant to insist upon a maximum cost, or upon a minimum cost. We should like to have some answer on this point.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In the English Bill there is no similar provision to this, because the Ministry of Health has control over the borrowing powers of local authorities, and in this way can exercise some control over the cost of houses. In Scotland we have no such control over borrowing powers, and if a local authority chose, for example, to restrict tenders—I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has had some experience of this in Scotland—to a local ring of building contractors, it might quite possibly be that the cost of houses would rise unnecessarily high, and, if there were no control in these matters, we might find that the cost of house-building would rise all over the country, and that at the end of the subsidy period the State would be faced by a demand for a higher subsidy. We think it is necessary that the Department, which has knowledge of the average prices, in various parts of the country, should be able to exercise a veto upon local costs if it has reason to believe that the local costs are being manipulated, or that they are unduly high because a local authority is restricting its tenders, perhaps to one man or perhaps to two men who are local contractors, and we feel that it is necessary to import into the Bill these words "at a cost approved by the Department," as some sort of safeguard in the public interest that costs will not be unduly raised. It is in the interests of cheaper housing that we propose to insert these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 23, line 16, to leave out Subsection (6).
This brings us to the question whether or not the previous power which was granted to the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to make contributions on a 50–50 basis, or on a percentage basis up to 50 per cent., should be taken away from the Secretary of State or not. In the first place, it seems to be unnecessary that this repeal Clause should be carried. It is quite true that at the worst it might lead to the maintenance of two possible avenues of approach to the solution of the housing problem in Scotland, that is to say, firstly, the block grant determined by a formula, and, secondly, a percentage contribution. Hon. Members below the Gangway on this side afforded us very considerable support when this proposal was before the House previously, and the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) was also strongly moved by our arguments then, and I think was on the point of voting, if he did not actually cast his suffrage for us on that occasion.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I did.

Major ELLIOT: He did, and we are grateful to him for it. That is enough to make it clear that the proposal attracted support from several quarters of the House. The fact remains that there is no guarantee that this Bill will prove a complete solution of the housing problem in Scotland. The local authorities have become accustomed to working on a 50–50 basis, find they themselves have desired to maintain it as part of the machinery in Scotland. The proposal is very well safeguarded. The Minister has to have the approval of the Treasury; he may—not shall—make these contributions; and there is no danger whatever of his being rushed into doing something that he would rather not do. Therefore, the only question that remains is, is it desirable to withdraw this power from the Minister of making contributions on a percentage and not on a block basis? I suggest that it is not desirable to withdraw it. The Minister, after all, has had experience of it with the local authorities extending over a year on this occasion, and over a year in his previous administration, and I am sure he cannot point to any case of abuse of this power, nor to any case in which the local authorities
have desired to have it swept away. The local authorities themselves—the City of Dundee, the City of Edinburgh, and even the City of Glasgow—have found this provision to be quite easy, and have desired that it should be maintained. It gives exactly what the Minister was pleading for a few minutes ago, namely, a greater flexibility in dealing with these problems. He is bound by the Clauses of the previous Statute of 1923, and I think he will agree that it allows him the greatest possible latitude.
When we have a valuable piece of machinery, which has proved its use in the past, on the Statute Book, the case for sweeping it away must be overwhelming before we are asked to do so. No such overwhelming case has been made out to-day. At the best, it is a plea for tidiness in legislation, for sweeping this up and putting it into the dust-bin because a new piece of furniture has been brought in. We have au old proverb in Scotland, "Keep a thing for seven years and you will find a use for it." We might easily find a use for this in a much shorter period. This desire to throw away a useful piece of machinery before we have had any experience of the working of the new is a proposal to which the House should not accede.

Mr. BUCHAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends will not press this Amendment. It was very closely examined in Committee, and it has been the subject of long arguments and anxious discussion with the local authorities and, while it is true that at the beginning of the negotiations the local authorities, almost without exception, although not entirely, desired to maintain this alternative proviso in the Bill, we are assured now that they are satisfied that the terms and methods in this Bill are infinitely superior to the old 50–50 basis. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might retort, "If that is so, why not leave them the option, and if they did care to exercise it there would be no harm in placing it in the Bill." Let me tell the House what the whole purpose of the grant is. Under the 50–50 basis, whereby the local authority pays 50 per cent. of the annual loss and the State grants the other 50 per cent., we are
faced with this situation, that every year there requires to be a very close audit by the Department in Edinburgh to ascertain, on behalf of the Treasury, what exactly the loss is, and as the loss must vary from year to year, every sale of slum property involves again a most meticulous examination on the part of the Department in order to ensure that the financial interests of the State are safeguarded. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will see at once that any development of the slum clearance system on that basis would so develop bureaucratic control as really to make local government impossible.
The whole basis of the Bill is to give local authorities, and especially the local authorities of the wider areas under the 1929 Act, the greatest possible powers and to free them from this detailed audit, which was inevitable under the 50–50 basis and under the Addison scheme. We struggled, we believe successfully, to convince the local authorities that this new method of the unit grant system not only opened up a new vista of freedom from bureaucratic and departmental control in the detailed work of local government but was in itself a much fairer and juster and more economical method of proceeding with slum clearance. In the many discussions with representatives of the local authorities, while at the beginning we had very considerable pressure brought to bear upon us to let them retain the option, within recent months, certainly not since the middle of the Committee stage, have we had any request whatever from any source for the retention of the 50–50 method. We believe it is essential and wholly desirable that we should proceed in future on the basis of the unit grant and free the local authorities from this detailed, year in and year out, supervision of accounts, and that we should give the local authorities the widest possible freedom—this unit grant basis is equivalent to the block grant basis which hon. Members opposite frequently argue in favour of—and enable local authorities to proceed with the development of their schemes and free them from detailed supervision.

Mr. SKELTON: I think the House has listened with some surprise to the Under-Secretary's remarks. To my mind, they exhibit very clearly what has been in the
mind of the Government. Apparently their great triumph has been to convince the local authorities that the new system is not worse than the old and, now that he has convinced them, he wishes to deprive them of the alternative of both systems. The new system is highly experimental. It has only recently received even the most qualified measure of approval from the main authorities connected with slum clearance, and it seems to me on the hon. Gentleman's own argument to be quite unnecessary to deprive the local authorities of the alternative system. He skated with great speed over the thin ice of the obvious argument that it would give the local authorities the opportunity of choosing for themselves which scheme they wished to adopt. Surely that is an argument of great force. It is all the more powerful because the new scheme is so experimental, and because the hon. Gentleman has himself shown that, from the purely administrative point of view the new method will probably be simpler for the local authority. Therefore, there is no bias in favour of their retaining the old for any administrative reasons. If, therefore, they desire to retain the old, it will be because they have discovered that in spite of the prophecies of the Government, the old method has merits which the new method does not possess. If I thought the retention of the old method would enable the local authorities, for some extraneous reasons to prefer a scheme less satisfactory from a slum clearance point of view, I, too, should be all in favour of getting rid of the old, but the argument clearly is that, having found by experience that the old system has in certain circumstances merits which the new does not possess, it will make the local authorities desire to retain the old method and, therefore, there is no danger of their making use of the option unless it is clearly to the advantage of the clearance of slums.
I do not believe the hesitation and doubt with which the Government's Bill was received by the local authorities was entirely based upon administrative detail, or anything of that sort. So far as I understand the matter, I believe there is still room for cases in which the old method will be preferable to the new and, if that is so, I cannot see any reason connected with slum clearance which should
make the Government insist upon the destruction of the old method. I can see many reasons quite unconnected with slum clearance but most clearly connected with politics. I can see what fun it will be for future Labour supporters to say that from 1930 onwards every single slum clearance has been done under the Addison Act. Of course, that will be the greatest possible fun, but it has nothing to do with slum clearance. If that is to any extent the motive at work, it is introducing an entirely new element into the housing question, because up to date all parties, both in local and national politics, have tended to give credit where credit is due, to Acts passed even by their opponents. However, that admirable method is going to be altered and future generations will see, no doubt, statues of the right hon. Gentleman erected in many of the old Scottish boroughs as the great solver of the slum clearance problem as the result of having destroyed every alternative method. I would rather that, for his own credit, which I think is properly high in Scotland, he should take his courage in both hands and put the new experimental method against the old and let experience show which is the better. That seems to be the most practicable method.
Had the previous Act been a failure, had it been shown that its continued existence was a danger to the new, had it been necessary to sweep away the old method and put something workable in place of the unworkable, I should have been with the Government in their argument, but clearly that is not the situation at all. In the interests of slum clearance, in the interests of the whole vast problem, we should not abandon a method which, within its own limitations, has been successful. The House knows how far more largely carried out slum clearance has been in Scotland than in England. We have a successful Act behind us. I am all for trying new experiments if it can be shown that they contain some element of success or rapid advance which the old methods do not, but I am equally against abandoning a method which, so far as one can judge, if it is inferior, is only fractionally inferior to the new method, and a method which is well known to local authorities, which they were so satisfied with when the Bill was
introduced that they wanted no change at all. Their views in favour of the Bill have only been slightly altered as a result of repeated and eloquent arguments by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. It is folly to abandon the old method and to deprive local authorities of a perfectly valid and sound alternative when the interest that we have at heart is the improvement and the continuation of slum clearance and not the glorification of the Labour Government.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I support this Amendment for the retention of the Act. The position of the corporation of Dundee still stands good. They have not made any representations whatever on the score of difficulties in auditing, and the Under-Secretary has somewhat unduly emphasised that particular aspect. The strength of his case on former occasions was that under this new plan we were going to get a very much better financial result. There is, however, a very marked difference of opinion on that point and the moderate way of viewing the situation, leaving out any likelihood of partisanship, is to remember that there are two schemes from which the local authorities may choose the one that suits their purpose best. I am quite confident that the Under-Secretary is the last one to say that the corporation of Dundee are not exceedingly anxious to facilitate in every way the production of the requisite houses and to carry through any scheme in the most reasonable and economical fashion, but, at the same time, to seek to do justice in the matter of accommodation. The difficulty that arises under the Act pertains to a certain class of house, the smaller class of house. Not only our own corporation, but other corporations, have been meeting the requirements for these smaller houses. This Bill intends to take out the provision about the smaller class of house. That is a departure which is not made as regards the English Bill, and our constituencies decidedly object to it being foisted on Scotland and not on England. By the retention of this Act, the corporation of Dundee will have what they desire and will be able to provide this class of house which they find essential to many in the community.
I am very sorry that for some reason or other the Government remain
adamant on this issue. There is no strength in the Government case for maintaining only one scheme. They maintain that these corporations are wrong, and they will get better results under the one scheme, but, if these experts say there are grave doubts about that, and ask that they should have the opportunity they now have of using the benefits of the other Measure, why should not the Government agree to that proposal? They have to-day in some Amendments made concessions to the Opposition. Here is a concession to the local authorities who have been making earnest appeals and strong representations. They have made a declaration that the position still remains as before, and that there is an absolute need to secure that this Act should still be available for their choice. I wish to urge this point strongly. My duty to my constituency has been discharged here in maintaining that we would only be doing justice to the requirements of these constituencies by giving an opportunity to these corporations to use the Act for their requirements as they have done in the past.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I view the destruction of an Act, which admittedly has been working with considerable success in Scotland, with some apprehension. If it had been the case that we had not made any progress in Scotland in dealing with slum clearance, and if it had been demonstrated that in practice there had been material difficulties facing the Department and local authorities in dealing with these problems, then I would have been the first to listen to the arguments to destroy this Measure. Let me remind the House that in the past successive Governments, grappling with one of the most difficult problems any Government has had to face, have tried by one means or another to solve some of these housing problems. When there were various Measures dealing with the housing problem, it has not been the habit to destroy the Acts, but to endeavour to work them alongside each other. The Government, of which I was lately a Member, gave every support and opportunity to the working of the Wheatley Act. If we had desired to take up the attitude which the Government have now taken up with regard to slum clearance, we might have destroyed
or refused to have operated that Act. On the contrary, we refrained from any thing of the sort, and it has been our attitude—and I had hoped it would have been the attitude of Members on all sides—to co-operate and work together.
What is the attitude of the local authorities? When this matter was brought to their notice, obviously those who spoke with knowledge and authority were disturbed. It may be that the Government have been able, through private explanations, to mitigate and lessen their fears, but, so far as my knowledge goes, they have not removed, particularly in the minds of some of those who have the most difficult problems to deal with, the fear that, whatever advantage may come from the working of this Bill, there may be certain circumstances and conditions in certain parts of the country where it would be more to the advantage of the country to make use of this Act than the present proposals. The House ought, in dealing with these matters, unless there are insuperable difficulties and it is clear that there is going to be a misuse of public funds, not to destroy Measures which in practice have proved beneficial and have given good results. The assertion in these debates that we have made greater progress in slum clearance in Scotland than in England has not been disputed. It is under this Act which the Government now destroy that that progress has been made. It is, of course, within the power of the Government to deny to the local authorities the assistance of the Act, but I regret it, and think that those who have at heart the best interests of slum clearance will themselves come to regret it.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I would like to reply to a couple of statements made by the two last speakers from the Opposition side. With regard to the late Secretary of State, he waxed very eloquent over the idea that we were taking away some of the things that he and his Government had put on the Statute Book, but, in making that statement, he must have forgotten that he himself destroyed the very principle for which he is now contending. Under the Local Government Act, he abolished as far as possible the percentage system and brought in the block unit, so that, in condemning us, he is condemning himself, because he
did his best to destroy that principle in the Local Government Act, 1929. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) said he was surprised at the position that had been taken up to-day by my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The position he is taking up here now is the position taken up in Committee. The Amendment we are discussing is the very Amendment we discussed very fully in Committee, and which I think was not divided against.

Major ELLIOT: It was carried by one vote.

Mr. ADAMSON: I stand corrected. It was carried by a majority, and now the hon. Member for Perth says that the local authorities for Scotland prefer the other system. I do not know a single local authority, with the exception of Dundee, which has not approved of our substituting the unit grant system for the percentage system. They believe, after having carefully examined the question, that they will be better off and will get more money under the unit grant system than if the percentage system had remained. The hon. Member for Perth went on to say that the new system is experimental. The same can be said about the Local Government Act, 1929, which he supported, that Act in which hon. Members opposite destroyed the very principle they are now seeking to retain. If it is experimental in the one case, surely it can be as truly said that it was experimental in the other. I appeal to the Opposition not to press a matter which has been fully discussed in Committee, and agreed to by a majority of the Members. We have had this matter fully discussed in all its bearings, and the majority of the Committee believed that the system proposed by the Government was a better system than the one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends are attempting to thrust upon us to-night. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment and let us proceed to the next Amendment on the Order Paper.

Major ELLIOT: While I desire to facilitate the passage of the Measure, I think that there are points of principle on which it is necessary for us to take the opinion of the House. This Amendment was only carried by two votes in
Committee. One hears discussions always after a close Division as to whether certain Members were or were not absent, but I am fully convinced that, if we had cared to bring pressure to bear, we could have obtained larger representation and carried the Amendment. In spite of the explanation which has been given, the Government case that their Bill is really a better Bill than the 1923 Act. The Government's case is that the local authorities which were previously not satisfied are now satisfied. The senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has indicated that his local authority are not by any means completely satisfied yet with the provisions of the Bill. The Government which originally intended to deal with slum clearance by this Measure now find it necessary to bring in the 1924 Act in order to deal with smaller houses which it was proposed previously, either should not be built at all or should be built under the provisions of this Measure.
It is clear that this Bill is still in the process of evolution. Do not let us sweep away a thing which we have found useful in the past. Many of us have found that things which we desired to sweep away when in Opposition are not perhaps so easily dispensed with when we are in power. The Act of 1929 which the right hon. Gentleman brings in as an analogy, after all did not sweep away the percentage grant in several of the services, but there were services in which a clear case was made out for treatment by a block grant instead of on a percentage basis.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That Act was not carried by argument but by action in the Lobby.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member may bring his own conclusions to bear on that matter. Be that as it may, the arguments brought forward do not weaken our case at all. Here is an Act which is working, and if it continues to work it will not clash with the Bill which we are now asked to put upon the Statute Book. Here is a proposal which it was decided to preserve in the Scottish Grand Committee by only 22 votes against 20, and for all these reasons it seems reasonable that the opinion of the House should be taken, although, we are perfectly ready to bow to the decision of the House.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 91.

Division No. 433.]
AYES.
[7.21 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Herriotts, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pole, Major D. G.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hoffman, P. C.
Potts, John S.


Alpass, J. H.
Hopkin, Daniel
Price, M. P.


Arnott, John
Horrabin, J. F.
Pybus, Percy John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ayles, Walter
Johnston, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, Alfred John
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Barr, James
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bellamy, Albert
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Kennedy, Thomas
Romeril, H. G.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Kinley, J.
Rowson, Guy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Knight, Holford
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Lang, Gordon
Sanders, W. S.


Bowen, J. W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sawyer, G. F.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lathan, G.
Scurr, John


Broad, Francis Alfred
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sherwood, G. H.


Bromfield, William
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Shield, George William


Brooke, W.
Lawrence, Susan
Shinwell, E.


Brothers, M.
Laurie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Simmons, C. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sinkinson, George


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Burgess, F. G.
Lindley, Fred W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Caine, Derwent Hall
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Cameron, A. G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Snell, Harry


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Longden, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, Thomas
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Chater, Daniel
Lunn, William
Sorensen, R.


Clarke, J. S.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Cluse, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McElwee, A.
Strauss, G. R.


Compton, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Sullivan, J.


Cove, William G.
McKinley, A.
Sutton, J. E.


Daggar, George
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Dallas, George
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
McShane, John James
Tillett, Ben


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Denman, Hon. R. D.
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Dickson, T.
Marcus, M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Duncan, Charles
Markham, S. F.
Vaughan, D. J.


Ede, James Chuter
Marley, J.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Marshall, Fred
Walkden, A. G.


Egan, W. H.
Mathers, George
Walker, J.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Matters L. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Melville, Sir James
Watkins, F. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Messer, Fred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Middleton, G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gill, T. H.
Mills, J. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Milner, Major J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Gossling, A. G.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Gould, F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morley, Ralph
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Moses, J. J. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, F. (York. W. A., Normanton)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, Hugh
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wise, E. F.


Hardie, George D.
Oldfield, J. R.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)



Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paling, Wilfrid
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Haycock, A. W.
Palmer, E. T.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hayes, John Henry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
William Whiteley.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Perry, S. F.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gower, Sir Robert
Remer, John R.


Albery, Irving James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Atholl, Duchess of
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Atkinson, C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hanbury, C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Beaumont, M. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Berry, Sir George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Scrymgeour, E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Skelton, A. N.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Boyce, H. L.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smithers, Waldron


Bracken, B.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chapman, Sir S.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lymington, Viscount
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colville, Major D. J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Train, J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wells, Sydney R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Muirhead, A. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Fielden, E. B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ford, Sir P. J.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Margesson.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Reid, David D. (County Down)



Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

CLAUSE 24.—(Special conditions.)

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in page 24, line 4, after the word "that," to insert the words:
whilst the authority may charge in respect of any house such rent as they may think fit and may grant to the tenant of any house such rebates from rent, subject to such terms and conditions as they may think fit.
After the result of my last effort to improve a Scottish Bill, I do not know that I ought to have the temerity again to make the attempt. While we frequently listen to, and nearly always benefit from, the voice of Scotland on English Bills, it is much more rarely that English Members intervene in Scottish in this House. The object of this Amendment, as on the last occasion, is simply to give the House an opportunity of saying whether it considers that the provision which some of us considered to be an improvement when it was introduced in the Committee stage on the English Bill might not likewise be an improvement in the Scottish Bill. The words which I propose should be inserted in this Clause are precisely the words which were inserted, on the Motion of the Minister of Health in the English Bill. The object is to make it perfectly clear to local authorities that they have this double alternative; they may use the subsidy granted under the
Bill to reduce rents all round or they may, if they prefer, on such conditions as they may consider desirable, grant rebates from rent to individual tenants. The Amendment would not in any way fetter the freedom of local authorities, on which the Under-Secretary laid so much stress, to deal with local conditions. It merely lays stress on the fact that this double alternative is open to them.
Two objections were raised to this proposal when we were discussing it in relation to the English Bill. One objection was that some did not like rebates on rent or differential rents. The second objection was that whether they like it or not such rebates or differential rents were already possible under the Bill, and that it was not necessary to insert these words. Those who say that they do not like rebates on rents or differential rents, but that rents should all be the same for the same class of house, really mean that they want low rents for all classes of houses. It is clear under the provisions of the Bill, and in view of the financial assistance granted, that the alternative of local authorities will be a very trivial reduction in rents, far too small to bring them within the capacity of the poorer wage-earners, or a concentration of the benefits of the Bill on selected tenants who stand in special need of assistance by reason of dependant
children, or poverty, or a combination of both circumstances.
What, after all, is the amount of financial assistance granted under the Bill? I am more familiar with the working of the English Bill, but, as far as I can tell, it would come to much the same thing in both cases. On the English Bill we were told that if the subsidy was used in reducing rents all round for all houses built under it, it would mean 1s. per house less rent than the Wheatley rents; and that if the subsidy was concentrated in reducing rents over one-half of the houses built, it would, ipso facto, be a 2s. per house reduction. In the Scottish Bill I imagine that the difference between the Wheatley Act and this Bill will be about the same. I believe the Wheatley subsidy is a little higher in Scotland, but, on the other hand, the grant under this Bill is worth about 6d. more than under the English provision. It is £2 5s. in England and £2 15s. in Scotland, or 6d. a week on the rent. Therefore, I suggest that if this Bill is not to cause bitter disappointment to those who are expecting to benefit from it, it is most essential that local authorities shall be encouraged to concentrate the very small extra benefit granted on those tenants who need it most. The 1s. reduction on the rents commonly charged for Wheatley houses, which vary from 10s. to 16s. and 17s., is not going to meet the needs of the poorer wage-earners.
What can make this Bill of real value is to concentrate this extra subsidy in the shape of rebates on rents. If the rents charged are fixed at the same level as under the Wheatley Act, and are subject to a rebate of 1s. or 1s. 6d. for each dependent child, there is a double advantage to the family of three or four children and the amount of rent reduction is sufficient to be a real benefit. It is something worth claiming. On the other hand, the same amount of money can be used twice or three times over, because as the children grow up the rent automatically adjust itself to the changed conditions of the family, and that amount of money is released for the benefit of the more needy tenants. The same thing applies in the case of poverty, although I always deprecate any distinction being made on the ground of income rather than on the ground of
dependent children, because the facts are much more difficult to establish and it involves invidious distinctions. We have to bear in mind that child dependancy is responsible for the vast majority of cases of serious hardship. Before the War, child dependancy was responsible for about three-quarters of the cases of poverty. Therefore, we want to encourage local authorities to consider the possibility of rebates on rent.
The question is, is it necessary to do this by including these words in the Bill? It may be said—indeed, it has been said—that even if the words are not included, it is still possible for a local authority to grant rebates on rents, or make differential rents, on such terms and conditions as they please, why then is it necessary to put these words in the Bill? I suggest that when it is the clear intention of those responsible for an Act of Parliament that it should be used in such and such a way, it is desirable that that intention should as far as possible, without any redundant explanations, be made clear in the Act itself. Local authorities are much more likely to have regard to words inserted in an Act of Parliament than to interpretations doled out in White Papers and circulars, which have an ephemeral exisence and which may change from time to time. If it is said that the possibility of granting rebates on rent is not necessary, how can those who object account for the fact that it is quite possible to grant rebates under the Wheatley Act to individual tenants, based upon their poverty or the number of their children? This is actually being done under certain schemes, but as far as the majority of local authorities are concerned, they have proceeded simply to reduce the rents of all houses built by an equal amount, with the result, which we all deplore, that the benefits of the Housing Acts have largely gone to those who do not need them, and those who need them most have had to go without. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept this Amendment and so give a lead to local authorities in this respect.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is a proposal which lends itself to adoption by local authorities in certain circumstances. It is quite optional. It is open to local authorities to adopt
the scheme if in certain circumstances they find it possible to carry it out. Circumstances may arise which may require such a provision as this.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sure that every Member of the House appreciates the enthusiasm and determination with which the hon. Lady prosecutes the idea of children's allowances, and she will, I am sure, be the first to admit that we have not failed to open the door widely to it in this Bill. In paragraph (c), Clause 24, as the Bill now stands, provision is made whereby the total amount of the rents charged in respect of the houses in any year shall be such and such an amount. In other words, a local authority is empowered to secure a total sum in rent over the whole scheme, and within that total sum in rent a local authority may make whatever differentiation it pleases; and it need not be necessarily a rebate for children; it may take into account any number of circumstances. It may take into account general questions of poverty; and we think that we are doing the best possible thing in the interests of family allowances to leave a local authority with the widest possible option and not give them the specific but limited direction which the hon. Lady seeks to give by her Amendment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Can local authorities adopt this suggestion if they so desire?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes, that is the point I want to make. If any local authority desires to accept the view of the hon. Lady as regards children's allowances, it may do so under the terms of the Bill. There is nothing whatever to stop it. The Bill is intentionally so framed as to leave to local authorities the widest possible option in regard to differential rents. For all practical purposes and for all administrative purposes the hon. Lady's point has been met. The specified and limited direction which she seeks to give in the way of differentiation, we have not thought it advisable to put into the Bill. I will give her one illustration of the sort of difficulty with which we should be faced in putting such a differentiation as she suggests in the Bill. We would very much prefer that, as a matter of administration, whatever rents are charged for
houses in a scheme, houses of a similar size, where there is the same number of apartments, should be placed on the valuation roll at the same apparent rent. We should not like to have anything in the nature of a series of depressed classes growing up side by side in a common tenement.
We have not only given power to the local authorities—we hope that they will exercise it, and we will do our utmost, by persuasion, to induce them to exercise it—to charge differential rents, but we are giving such powers to the housing committee of any city council from the Public, Assistance Committee as will enable them, where necessary, to assist families who are unable to pay rents, by allowing them to live rent, free. That is quite apart from the question of rebates for children. There are poverty-stricken households where we trust the local authority will be able to meet the situation. I hope the hon. Lady will accept the assurance that we are not unmindful of her point of view, that we are not unsympathetic, that we have left the door widely open to any local authority, in any given case, where it desires to apply the principle of differential rents. Under these circumstances, I hope that she will not press an Amendment which, as a direction is a limiting one.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): Does the hon. Lady wish to press her Amendment?

Miss RATHBONE: I feel that, in view of the explanation that has been given, I have no option but to withdraw the Amendment. I note that the effect of the Under-Secretary's statement is that he admits that the amount of rent reduction will be so small that it will turn the recipients into paupers by giving them assistance from the Public Assistance Committee, if the relief is not given by means of rebates in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 24, line 16, to leave out from the word "or," to the word "due," in line 19, and to insert instead thereof the words:
as respects any particular year such greater or less sum to be deemed to be provided out of rates as the local authority, in the case of a greater sum, may think necessary
and as the Department, in the case of a less sum, may, on the application of the authority, approve.
This Amendment gives the local authority power, if circumstances should change and if the cost of building should fall, or if other financial circumstances should operate, with the consent of the Department, to amend the limitation of £4 10s. which is in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 19, after the word "had," to insert the words "in either case."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

CLAUSE 26.—(Recovery of possession of buildings subject to clearance, demolition or closing order.)

Mr. MacROBERT: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
This Amendment was raised in another form in Committee. The Clause as it stands will be a great injustice. I am sure that however prejudiced a person may be against property owners he wishes to be fair to them. When I first read the Clause it seemed to me that there had been a clerical error, and I pointed it out to the Government. The words in the Sub-section are, that any expenses incurred by a local authority may be recovered by them from the owner of the building or house. I thought that the word "owner" was a clerical error and that "occupier" was meant, and I was amazed when I was told that it was not a clerical error, and that "owner" was meant.

Mr. McKINLAY: Why "occupier"?

Mr. MacROBERT: He would be liable, in any event, and if he is not able to pay, why should the local authority recover against the owner? Of course, the occupier will be liable, because he has resisted an order of the local authority, and if and when the case comes into court he will be made liable to pay the expenses. If it remained there, I should be content, but the Government say that although the occupier may be liable to pay the expenses he may not pay them; therefore, although the local authority are the parties who raised the case, they are going to mulct
the owner in the expenses. Clause 28 (1) provides that the person who gives notice to the occupier to remove is not the owner but the local authority. The local authority intimate to the occupier that he has to leave the premises, and if he does not do so one may assume, in ordinary circumstances, that the local authority will raise a case against him, and eject him. That is provided for in the Act of 1925. In the Act of 1925, no power was given to the owner to do anything. He was not given the power to eject because he was not the person to ask the occupier to go out; it was the local authority that acted. The local authority has to intimate to the occupier that he must leave the premises which were in a defective state, and if he does not do so the local authority should see to it that he obeys the order.
In the Act of 1925 the owner was not allowed to interfere. The Rent Restrictions Act prevented him from ejecting. That was so decided in the courts. The only body that could eject the occupier was the local authority. Under this Bill, we find that provision is made, as in the Act of 1925, that the local authority shall call upon the occupier to leave the insanitary premises. Then it goes on to say:
…. and if at any time after the date on which the notice requires the building or house to be vacated any person is in occupation of the building or house or of any part thereof, the authority or any owner of the building or house may make summary application for removal and ejection ….
If the occupier refuses to obey the order properly given by the local authority then, apparently, either the local authority or the owner may move in court for his ejection. Supposing the owner does so. What about the expenses? No doubt he would be entitled to get them from the occupier who had disobeyed the order, but the occupier probably would not pay. Therefore, the person who made the application would have to go without his expenses. But, on the other hand, this particular Subsection gives the right to the local authority to recover the expenses from the owner. Supposing the local authority take action, and the occupier has disobeyed the order. They would be entitled in the first place to get their
expenses against the occupier, I should assume, on the ground that he has disobeyed a statutory order, but if he does not pay the expenses, Sub-section (2) provides that the local authority are to go against the owner and get the expenses from him—expenses caused by the refusal of the occupier to obey a notice served upon him by the local authority.
It seems to me to be a monstrous suggestion, I say so with all deliberation, that the local authority should have the right, when the owner has done nothing wrong, and has obeyed all the instructions given, to recover expenses caused by occupier against the owner. It may be said that the owner did wrong because he allowed his premises to get out of condition, but he is punished for that by having his property demolished. Where the local authority give notice to the tenant to quit, and he has refused to obey, there is no justification for making the owner liable for the expenses. By leaving the Sub-section out of the Clause no injustice will be done to anybody. The local authority will be entitled to get their expenses against the occupier if he is able to pay, and if he is not able to pay, they will do without. That will be the position if they chose to raise the application. The Government have put down an Amendment on this point, but it is almost a grotesque Amendment. It says:
but a local authority shall not be entitled to recover any expenses under this sub-section unless the owner has failed to make, within a reasonable time a summary application for removal and ejection ….
He has no duty to make that application any more than the local authority. The Bill provides that either the owner or the local authority may take action. Why the owner should be penalised on the ground that he has not made application, when the local authority have not done it, I cannot understand. I hope the Government will give effect to my Amendment, and that justice will be done to the owner of the property, who has done all that he can to get the property vacated, and that he shall not be mulcted in expenses because the occupier refuses to vacate.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We thought that we had met every reasonable point that was
raised in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman. He must, in fairness, admit that every reasonable grievance that has been brought to our notice from the first stage of this Bill until now we have been willing and anxious to meet. I know of no case where any reasonable point has not been met.

Mr. MacROBERT: I agree that the Government have been very reasonable in meeting the Amendments that I have proposed, and it is because I hold so strongly that my Amendment meets a grievance, that I hope they will be able to meet me in this.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We have not steeled our hearts in any way against any suggestion that has been made to make the Bill fairer, more reasonable or more just, from whatever quarter the suggestion has come. Let the right hon. Gentleman consider what his Amendment means. It means that the proprietor of what I may call for short a rotten property, which has become insanitary and a menace to the community, whose duty it is to demolish that rotten property and to get rid of it in the public interest, is on every occasion to throw on to the community at least a part of the legal costs which are incurred in clearing away that rotten property. There has been no dispute about the fact that it has always been his duty in the past to discharge whatever legal expenses were necessary in clearing away his rotten property, if he could not recover them from his tenant. That has always been his duty in the past, and it has never up to now been the duty of the public authority to undertake the burden of those expenses. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to throw upon the local authority what may be an added burden—it is not necessarily so, but it may be an added burden—in getting rid of a rotten and insanitary property, namely, a Share of the legal expenses which has hitherto in law had to be borne by the proprietor of that rotten property if he failed to recover them from his tenant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the Committee stage of this Bill upstairs, put forward the case that there might be hardship on the landlord if the tenant showed himself recalcitrant and refused to go. He argued that, if the landlord
had done everything he could to get his property demolished, it might be very hard if the proprietor in such a case were mulcted in unnecessary expense; and we sought to meet that argument. What do we say in our Amendment to this Clause which is next, on the Paper?
But a local authority shall not be entitled to recover any expenses under this sub-section unless the owner has failed to make, within a reasonable time, a summary application for removal and ejection to the sheriff, or, having made such an application, has failed to take all steps necessary to have the application disposed of within a reasonable time.
It has always been, in law, his duty to do that.

Mr. MacROBERT: No; it has never been the duty of the landlord to get rid of his tenant unless he chose to do so, and, if he does not do it, this Bill will make him pay all the local authority's expenses.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It has always been the duty of the proprietor to keep his property in a sanitary condition, and, if a proprietor does not keep his property in a sanitary condition, it is now his duty, at the call of the local authority, to shut it, and to evict his tenant. That is his duty, and what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now seeking to do is to put the costs of his doing his duty upon the local authority.

Mr. MacROBERT: No.

Mr. JOHNSTON: if a property is in an insanitary condition and is unfit for human habitation, it has always been the duty of the proprietor to stop that state of affairs and to pay the expenses of stopping it.

Mr. MacROBERT: But he cannot evict the tenant.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means.

Mr. MacROBERT: May I explain that under the Act of 1925 the only person who could evict was the local authority. The hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that it was always the duty of the landlord to evict a tenant from insanitary premises; but could he do that under the old law? He had no right to do it; the Rent Restrictions Act prevented it. It has been so held in the courts, and
indeed it is stated in the Act of 1925, that the only person who can evict the tenant is the local authority.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the landlord has a statutory duty to preserve his property in decent and sanitary condition?

Mr. MacROBERT: That is another matter.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That is the foundation of the thing. Having allowed his property to fall into an insanitary condition, it is his duty, at the call of the local authority, to close it or demolish it; and, if it is going to cause him expenses to do it, legal or otherwise, it is his duty to bear them.

Mr. MacROBERT: Yes, I agree, but not to evict.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now seeking to foist upon the local authority half of the legal expenses of getting rid of the tenant. We have sought to remedy the legitimate grievance which there might be in this matter by framing an Amendment which provides that the local authority shall not have power to recover expenses where the landlord has not failed to discharge his statutory duty. I point out this, further: There only may be a call by the local authority upon the proprietor. The local authority need not recover, they only may recover; and the local authority are not likely to attempt to recover unless they are convinced that there has been a deliberate attempt on the part of the proprietor to put on to the local authority costs which legitimately ought not to be borne by the local authority.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I had not intended to enter the lists upon a matter of legal interpretation, but the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has, so far as I am able to gather, asserted that what is being done by this Bill is imposing no further duty upon the proprietor than has been the case in the past. As I understand the position, that is not so. In so far as the problem concerns the question of insanitary buildings, it is so, but, when it comes to the question of eviction, the pproprietor, under the existing Act of 1925 and the Rent Restrictions Act, has been debarred from taking the action which
the Government are now seeking by this Bill to impose upon him. This is really a matter upon which the House has a duty to be quite clear, and I would invite the Lord Advocate to explain to the House the exact legal position as it exists at the present time, and, in so far as it is being altered by this present Act, what those alterations amount to. None of us, I am sure, would wish to relieve the landlord of his proper duty, but clearly there are occasions when it is the proper duty of the local authority, and is their duty alone, to take this action; and that they should endeavour to lay upon the shoulders of the landlord expenses which justly they have no right to exact seems to me to be harsh and inequitable. At any rate, let us be quite clear as to the facts. I do not doubt that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has put this case as clearly as he can, but as I understand it and as I am advised, he has not accurately explained to the House the existing legal position, and the House ought to know exactly where it stands in this matter.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I confess that I have very great difficulty in understanding precisely what the difficulty of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite is in this matter. It seems to me that the question for the consideration of the House is not so much what is the existing law, regarding which there may be room for difference of opinion, as the question whether the particular Subsection which it is proposed should be deleted is or is not an equitable Sub-section.

Sir J. GILMOUR: May I tell the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the specific question which I wish answered, following upon what the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has said, because I am advised that what the Under-Secretary has stated is misleading, and, frankly, is not in accordance with the facts of the case. The Under-Secretary of State, as I understand it, has said that in the proposals which he is putting before the House in this Sub-section there is no alteration in the law as it affects the owner of property; but, in my judgment, and as I am advised, there is a distinct alteration of the law, and the House will be misled by the Under-Secretary if it accepts the position as he has explained it. Whether it is proper to make this
alteration, or whether it is not, the House really ought to have a definite and clear statement of fact as to what is the position of the owner under the law at the present time as regards eviction, and how far it is being altered by the proposals in this Sub-section.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I was just coming to that matter, but I was pointing out that to my mind the important question is whether Sub-section (2) is an equitable provision or riot. I am not particularly concerned with the question whether it effects any material alteration in the existing law; but, as regards the point upon which the right hon. Gentleman has asked for information, as I understand the existing law, the cost of demolishing a condemned house is a cost which lies upon the owner of the house.

Mr. MacROBERT: The question is the cost of eviction.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman would keep his mind in control for two consecutive sentences. Perhaps both the right hon. Gentlemen opposite will follow me step by step. Under the existing law, where an order is made for the demolition of property, the costs of the demolition and the duty of demolishing it rest upon the owner, and, unless I am pointed to some statutory warrant for the contrary view, I should have thought that the cost of evicting, at any rate, preliminary to the work of demolition being carried out, was properly a cost which fell upon the owner of the property. I may be wrong in that—

Mr. MacROBERT: May 1, in order that the Lord Advocate may follow the point, refer him to Section 8, Sub-section (3), of the 1925 Act, which I will hand him in a moment, and also Section 112, which says that the Rent Restrictions Act is excluded only so far as regards the obtaining of possession of a house by a local authority; and there have been cases in the Courts which have decided that the owner has at the present time no power to eject.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I have the Act here. Of course, the owner himself has no power to eject, but I should like to see the authority which says that the owner has no power to eject under an
appropriate sanction. But however that may be, the material question is whether this is an equitable provision or not. So far as that matter is concerned, I venture to think that there is no possible answer to the view which has been put before the House by the Under-Secretary of State. If, in order to carry out the necessary work, an eviction has to be carried through, I for my part, cannot for the life of me see why the expense of carrying through that eviction should be placed upon the local authority and not upon the owner of the property who has the tenant in occupation who renders the eviction necessary.

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered the question which I put to him, and in so far as my limited comprehension goes of the information which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given the House, I now understand—he will perhaps contradict me if I am wrong—that it was improperly stated in this House that under the existing law, so far as eviction is concerned, the proprietor had either the right or the duty to enforce that eviction. The House now understands that that was improperly and wrongly stated, but that it is a matter which the hon. Gentleman thinks no one here should question. So far as we are concerned we do question it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 26, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
but a local authority shall not be entitled to recover any expenses under this subsection unless the owner has failed to make, within a reasonable time a summary application for removal and ejection to the sheriff or having made such an application has failed to take all steps necessary to have the application disposed of within a reasonable time.
The provisions of the Clause were broadly discussed on the last Amendment and there is no need for me to go over the ground again.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 28.—(Power of local authority to require information as to ownership of premises.)

Amendment made: In page 27, line 23, leave out the words "land, house or
other building," and insert instead thereof the word "premises."

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 32.—(Amendment of s. 51 of principal Act.)

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 29, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
and the provisions of Section eleven of this Act relating to the validity and date of operation of compulsory purchase orders for the purposes of Part I of this Act shall with the necessary modifications, apply to compulsory purchase orders for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps we can have a word of explanation as to what exactly is the bearing of this Amendment.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The Amendment is consequential on the new Clause 11 of the Bill, which provides for an appeal to the Court of Session in certain circumstances against clearance and compulsory purchase orders under Part I of the Bill when confirmed by the Department. There is the same procedure to be applied to orders providing for the compulsory purchase of land for the purpose of Part III of the Act of 1925, and it is necessary to provide for the same power of appeal against the order.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 33.—(Provisions with respect to official representations.)

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 30, line 13, to leave out the words "complain to him in writing," and to insert instead thereof the words:
or—
(c) in the case of a small burgh within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, the medical officer of health of the county;
intimate in writing to the medical officer of health of the authority.
This Amendment implements an undertaking given in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—(Power of Department to enforce exercise of powers by local authorities.)

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 31, line 33, at the end, to insert the words:
Any order made by the Department under this section shall be forthwith laid before Parliament, and if within thirty days either House resolves that the order should be annulled the order shall be annulled, but without prejudice to anything done thereunder.
This Clause gives the Department very wide powers and no doubt necessarily. But it gives the Department powers to take back from the local authorities of the country powers which have been entrusted to them by this House. That is to be done only in the case of very grave default. The Department has to take several steps. First of all complaint has to be made to it by four or more local government electors of the district. Then the Department may cause a local inquiry to be held. Next it can make an order, declaring the authority to be in default, and directing it to exercise such of the powers within such time as may be specified in the order. If the local authority fails to comply with any requirement thereunder the Department may go through certain procedure, and this is the important point:
The Department may make an order rendering exercisable by themselves such of the powers of the local authority under the principal Act as may be specified in their order.
We have moved our Amendment to indicate that the attention of the country should be called to the default of the local authority. The final engine upon which the Government must rely in such cases is the pressure of public opinion. It is desirable to mobilise public opinion against a defaulting authority. The steps which the Department take will undoubtedly demand that the Department should have the backing of a strong and almost unanimous public opinion. One of the ways in which public opinion is brought together is on the Floor of this House. The proposal made here is in the usual form—that an order made by the Department should be laid before Parliament, and thereupon should be acted upon by the Department unless a Resolution is passed against the order in question. That procedure has been put into many other Acts passed by Governments of various complexions, and I do not think it can be said that that procedure has ever been abused. Somewhat to my surprise the Under-Secretary last night waxed rather heated about this Amendment and said that we were desirous of limiting the powers which would
be exercisable in case of default. I think that to say so is to misinterpret this Amendment. Our proposal is that if a local authority is being proceeded against, that should be done openly and publicly and if the local authority has any defence that the defence should be brought out here on the Floor of the House.
I think it very improbable that a local authority in such circumstances could put up any defence. If all these steps had been taken and if it was still desired by the Department to go forward against the local authority, then, no doubt, the local authority's default would be of such a, flagrant character that it would not be able to put up any defence at all. Still, one has known cases where proposals which have seemed more than reasonable to those in authority have not seemed so reasonable to the country as a whole. It is a sound proposition that no man should be judge in his own cause but here the Department is being placed in the position of acting as judge in its own cause. That is an unsound position for the Department and for the Minister and it is an unsound position in relation to the steps which it is proposed to take against local authorities in such circumstances. People vary in their positions in this House. Sometimes the Government of the day is drawn from a party of one complexion and sometimes from a party of another complexion. When one is in the seats of power all one's acts seem so reasonable that it is impossible to conceive of any reasonable being objecting to them, but the time may come when hon. Members opposite will be sitting on this side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "A long way off!"] Hon. Members should not be too confident. We may yet see the Liberal party again on the benches opposite, and hon. Members may be sitting here and they may find steps being taken by a Government of a different complexion from their own to which they are strongly opposed. In those circumstances they might regret that there was no opportunity of raising the matter by means of a discussion on the Floor of the House of Commons which is the way in which such questions should be raised.
The Amendment would not have the effect of delaying the Government or the Department in the steps which they
desire to take. As I say, the default which would lead to these extreme powers being invoked would necessarily be flagrant and long-continued, and the question of 30 days will not seriously prejudice the proper settlement of the cause at issue. I think this procedure which has been inserted in so many other Acts might reasonably be included in this Measure, more particularly from the constitutional point of view, seeing that the Department is here proposing to take back by Departmental order powers which were entrusted to local authorities not by the Department but by the Act of this House. It is by the Act of this House that these local authorities exercise their powers, and if they are in default in the use of those powers the attention of this House ought to be called to their default, not merely for the sake of dealing with the default itself but for the sake of remedying other grievances which though not so flagrant it may be desirable to bring under review.

Mr. MacROBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We attach very considerable importance to the powers which we are asking for in this Clause and the hon. and gallant Gentleman has apparently forgotten that the powers of which he is now seeking to deprive the Department are already in the law of the land. In the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925—the Consolidation Act—for which his Government was responsible, Clause 41, Sub-section (2), contains the following:
If the local authority fail within such time as may be prescribed by the order to make an improvement or reconstruction scheme to the satisfaction of the board and to carry the scheme into execution the board may themselves make and take such steps as may be necessary to carry out a scheme.
We attach considerable importance, indeed, to the retention of those powers. It is not that any Government in its senses would ever hastily seek to exercise those powers, but it is the very fact that those powers are in reserve, the very fact that the Department and the Government of the day possess powers, in the national interest, either to take the defaulting authority, with the consent of the Lord Advocate, to the Court of Session, or to go themselves as a Department into the area of the defaulting
local authority and do the job—it is the fast, I say, that these powers are in reserve which we regard as of considerable importance. There are, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, authorities in Scotland in regard to whom we must, in the national interest, have some sort of ultimate power of compulsion. There are counties in Scotland in which there has not been a single house built under a State-assisted scheme, in which the Department has tried to use persuasion, month after month and year after year, and despite the powers which we now possess we have hitherto been unable to induce those authorities to do their duty. There is one local authority with whom we are in communication at this moment and we have intimated to them that unless they take the necessary steps to prepare a housing scheme, in view of the terrible state of affairs to which their attention has been drawn by their own medical officer of health, we shall be compelled, in the national interest, to exercise what powers are at our disposal now.
It would be a matter for regret if the House should take away from the Department or minimise in any way the powers which the Department presently possess—powers given them by a Conservative Government—to exercise compulsion in the last resort upon a defaulting local authority. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is only a matter of 30 days, but it is 30 days in two Houses of Parliament and either House can annul the Order. No Government or Secretary of State would ever dream of going into the area of any local authority unnecessarily and incurring all the odium that would accrue. No Secretary of State for Scotland would desire to do that and to stand here to be shot at in the House of Commons by the local representatives of that area and, indeed, by the Opposition. The House has the fullest possible power. The Opposition can at any moment demand a Vote of Censure on the Government for any wanton unnecessary, unjust, unfair, unreasonble exercise of these powers. This House is supreme, and remembering these facts, I trust that hon. Members will not seek to deprive us of the ultimate weapon, the ultimate power which we have now, which previous Governments have possessed and which was granted by a Conservative Administration.
I trust that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends, upon further consideration, will decide not to seek to weaken the Department in any way in its struggle on behalf of better housing system in Scotland, but will rather give us all the powers necessary to secure the end which we are seeking to achieve by this Bill.

Mr. MacROBERT: The Under-Secretary assumes that the Department are always wiser than the local authorities. This Clause refers only to the Act of 1925. These particular provisions are not meant for this Bill as a whole, but refer only to certain provisions in the Act of 1925. As I read this particular Clause, it does not help the Government at all with regard to the provisions in this Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The quotation which I read from Section 41 (2) of the Act of 1925 is the law now, and we are only asking that we shall have similar powers for schemes under this Bill.

Mr. MacROBERT: I am bound to say that I read this Clause differently from the Under-Secretary. May I draw his attention to the beginning of the Clause, which says:
In any case where—
(i) a complaint has been made to the Department"—
Then follow paragraphs (a) and (b), and it goes on to say:
that the local authority have failed to exercise their powers under the principal Act.
The Under-Secretary's argument was that he wanted the same powers in this Bill as the powers that have been given under the Act of 1925. This Clause deals only with the Act of 1925, if my interpretation is right. I see that there is something in the point I am making, because it is not contradicted. I may be completely wrong, but the hon. Gentleman will see, if he reads it, that this Clause appears to be limited entirely to the powers which the local authority have failed to exercise under the Act of 1925, and it is repeating the powers which are in the 1925 Act. If this Clause were intended to give power to the Department with regard to the failure of duty of a local authority in respect of this particular Bill, the phraseology
would require to be different, but I may have misread it and it may be corrected later on in the Bill.
The other point which I wish to make is that here you have the local authority taking one view and the Department taking another view. It does not seem very fair that the Department should be able to say, "Our view is the right one, and yours is the wrong one." I could follow that if power were given to the Department, if they did not agree with the local authority, to do the work and pay for it themselves. Under an order of the court under Sub-section (2, a) of this Clause, however, the Department may do the work themselves, and claim the whole expense from the local authority. That comes to the same point, namely, that the local authority are being forced to do it against their own opinion. All I suggest is that if you have a responsible local authority of one opinion, and the Department of another opinion, there should be some kind of power that can determine that one or the other party is right. The Amendment simply says that, if the Department are wrong, the local authority shall not be forced to do what is wrong.

The LORD ADVOCATE: As regards the point first raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am bound to say that I think he is right on his reading of Sub-section (1, i) of this Clause, because the words are:
In any case where a complaint has been made to the Department …. that the local authority have failed to exercise their powers under the principal Act.
I do not see any way of getting round the word "principal," and therefore I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is quite right about that. Certainly something wider was in contemplation, and we are very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing our attention to it. It will be carefully considered by the Government, and we will try and give effect to the intention which we had in view by having the matter put right in another place.
That does not meet the other point as to whether it is desirable to set up Parliament as an appellate tribunal under this Clause. There is a great deal to be said for setting up Parliament as an appellate tribunal, but, if the Amendment were given effect to, you would be setting
up another place as an appellate tribunal, and giving to another House absolute power to veto and annul any order that the Department might make in regard to a matter of this kind. That is a proposal to which the Government cannot consent for a single moment. It might have been another matter if it had been proposed that this House should have the final say, but that is not the proposal, and we cannot consent for a single instant to a proposal that would give power to people in another place to render nugatory any steps which the Department might take under the provisions of this Bill.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure the Lord Advocate will agree that the intervention of my right hon. Friend has been of assistance to the House as a whole and that it goes some distance to clear up a point which had been left obscure by the drafting of the Bill. It is another example of the fact that we cannot always be right, and that it may be very reasonable that a certain court of appeal, in this case the Opposition, and in another case Parliament, should be brought in. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has decided that the matter can be brought up in another place and considered. Does not that in some way modify his opposition to the other point we brought up? He says the danger is that another place may be unjust, unreasonable and harsh but at this moment he has to say, "The House of Commons has failed. We were not able to put this right in our drafting—the Department was wrong; we have not been able to put this right through our Law Officers—they were wrong; we have not been able to put it right in the Scottish Grand Cornrnittee—they failed; we cannot find a way of putting it right on the Report stage; but it does not matter, because another place still remains, and we will put it right there!"
Does that not all indicate that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's apprehensions as to another place may be unreasonable? In the case of the Local Government Act it was left open to either House of Parliament to present a Resolution to nullify what was proposed, and I do not think he can point to any cases where
that procedure has been abused. I go so far as to say that we attach considerable importance to the making of such an Order and that we should be ready to consider any suggestions the Government brought forward to deal with it; but the fact that at this late stage of the Bill a point of considerable substance has been brought forward and that the intervention of another place will be necessary to put it right, and that the Lord Advocate has perfect confidence that it will be put right there, does indicate that the procedure we propose is not an unreasonable procedure. That he has conceded that some sort of appellate court is reasonable does show that this Amendment is neither a frivolous nor a time wasting one. However, I do not propose to press the matter further at this stage, and I will ask leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 35.—(Complaint to Department by tenant or occupier with regard to water supply, etc.)

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 31, line 36, to leave out the words "a water closet," and to insert instead thereof the words "the remedying of sanitary defects."
This new Clause, which was put down in manuscript on the very last day of the Committee stage of the Bill, gives a power of appeal to a tenant or occupier in regard to the provision of a water supply or water closet or the execution of works necessary to render a house fit for human habitation. I suggest that the words used here should be the same as those which are used throughout the rest of the Bill, "the remedying of sanitary defects." The Amendment will not narrow or weaken the Bill; on the contrary, it widens it. The remedying of sanitary defects covers the installation of a water closet, as well as other things, and it seems to be unnecessary to specify a water closet particularly. It might focus attention on it to the exclusion of the remedying of other sanitary defects, or lead some local authority to think that Parliament attached some special importance to the provision of a water-borne sewage system. There are places in rural districts where a water-borne sewage
system may be either undesirable or unnecessary. In any case, these words will leave the law as wide as possible, and as they have been used in the rest of the Bill I do not think there is any real reason why they should not be used here.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The reason for the insertion of a specific reference to a water closet is that under Section 20 of the Act of 1925 it is the duty of every local authority to require for each house:
a sufficient water closet wherever it is reasonably practicable so to do.
There is a similar statutory requirement in the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1919. This Clause contains the provision that:
If the tenant or occupier of a dwelling-house is aggrieved by any decision of a local authority with respect to the provision of a water supply or a water closet for the house or the execution of works necessary to render the house fit for human habitation he may
appeal to the sheriff or the Department. We believe that those words are sufficiently wide to cover all that is necessary or desirable, and that the specific reference to a water closet should be inserted to keep this Bill in harmony with the Acts I have quoted.

Major ELLIOT: May I point out that Section 20 of the Act of 1925 which the hon. Member quoted says that the owner shall be required to provide
a sufficient water closet wherever it is reasonably practicable so to do, and, where that is not so practicable, a sufficient earth closet.
If he desires to bring this Measure into harmony with the Act of 1925, I suggest that he should insert both clauses of the sentence. He is not bringing it into harmony with the other Acts when he inserts half of a sentence and not the whole of it. There may be many cases in rural areas where a sufficient earth closet would be a more desirable thing to provide than a water closet.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Secretary of State and the officers of the Department will consider this point. I would point out that there is an appeal to the sheriff in case of anything unreasonable being
attempted, but we will consider the point the hon. and gallant Member has put forward.

Major ELLIOT: On the understanding that the point will be further considered I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 36.—(Provisions as to exercise by Department of powers of a local authority.)

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 32, line 19, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words, "so far as the expenses are of a capital nature."
This Amendment is necessary in order to secure that the borrowing will be for expenses of a capital nature.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 46.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 35, line 19, after the word "undertaking," to insert the words:
the expression 'disrepair' includes deficiency in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls, except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the wilful default or neglect of the occupants of the house, and is not likely to injure or endanger their health.
The purpose of this Amendment is sufficiently explicit in itself and the words proposed to be inserted are words which have already been agreed to by this House.

Mr. MacROBEFRT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "walls," to insert the words "which renders the house unfit for human habitation."
9.0 p.m.
There are two other Amendments on the Paper to the proposed Government Amendment, one standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) in line 4 to leave out the word "and" and to insert instead thereof the word "or." The other Amendment stands in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour), and it proposes to leave out the words "and is not likely to injure or endanger their health." If the words which I am proposing are accepted, we shall not move the later Amendments, and we shall be quite content with the insertion of the
words "which renders the house unfit for human habitation." It may be argued that what I suggest is implied in the Bill itself, but I think that the words should be inserted to make the Clause clear. As the Government Amendment stands is would really apply to decorative painting and papering, and surely that is not what is intended. The Government Amendment is intended to apply simply to disrepair that would render a house unfit for human habitation. I think my Amendment is a reasonable one, and it would make it quite clear that decorative painting and papering is not included in the term "disrepair."

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I cannot accept this Amendment to the proposed Amendment nor can I accept the other two Amendments to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded, but I am quite willing to examine that part of the Bill again in order to see whether it requires any further Amendment in the direction which has been indicated.

Mr. MacROBERT: Is it intended to include in the expression "disrepair" decorative painting and papering?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland realises that this is a matter of some importance. If the expression "disrepair" includes decorative painting, papering and decorating, that may be a demand entailing an enormously heavy burden on the owner of the property. I think it is desirable that is should be made quite clear that there will not be more than a reasonable demand to keep the house in a proper sanitary and clean condition, and that is what we are all aiming at. The only doubts which I have on this point are that the words used in this part of the Bill are too indefinite, and ought to be reconsidered from the point of view of practical administration. If the Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us that he is not treating this matter as a joke, but in a serious way, and will give the point due consideration, that will be perfectly satisfactory.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I do not think I could have made myself plainer if I had tried. I promised to look into the matter and examine it. I do not know what other assurance the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants beyond that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman press his Amendment?

Mr. MacROBERT: I think that the right hon. Gentleman might say whether the intention of his Amendment is to include decorative painting or not. If he says that it is not so intended, no difficulty will arise, and the Clause can easily be adjusted.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I confess that I do not understand what the difficulty of my right hon. and learned Friend is. I should have thought that, as a matter of construction, the words:
the expression 'disrepair' includes deficiency in respect of painting and papering or distempering of walls
were obviously never intended to refer to painting that was what might be called pure decoration, but that they were intended to cover the kind of painting that one would say was reasonable from the point of view of the proper use of a house and maintaining it in a properly habitable condition. If I am right, and I think my right hon. and learned Friend will agree with me that that is the reasonable meaning as a matter of construction, I think the Amendment might be withdrawn. If hon. Gentlemen opposite desire that further consideration should be given to this matter, the Secretary of State has already indicated that he will certainly consider any representations that may be made.

Mr. MacROBERT: On the assurance that the Secretary of State will consider the matter and give effect to what is in the minds of all of us, I do not desire to press the Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Clearance Orders.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 38, line 17, after the word "health," to insert the words:
other than those to which sub-paragraph (b) hereof applies;
(b) the dwelling-houses and other premises which are injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets.
This is consequential on an Amendment to Clause 2 which has already been agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 39, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
(iii) before confirming the order the Department shall send to the local authority and to every person who, having given notice to the Department of his objection to the order, appeared at the public local inquiry in support of his objection a copy of the order as proposed to be confirmed, with an intimation that any representations in writing with respect thereto may be made to the Department within fourteen days after the date on which a copy has been sent, and before confirming the order the Department shall consider any such representations received.
It will be remembered that in the Committee there was a demand from the Opposition that the report of the commissioner appointed by the Department to conduct the inquiry into a clearance or compulsory purchase order should be open to inspection by any person interested. It was pointed out in reply that the report, except in so far as it recorded facts and arguments submitted at the inquiry, contained confidential advice by the commissioner to the Department which it would not be proper to publish. It has, however, been represented that there are possibilities of mistakes by the commissioner in connection with the classification of property, and that, to obviate any such mistake, the procedure followed by arbiters in Scotland of issuing proposed findings might be adopted. The Government are anxious to avoid any possibility of mistake, and, in view of the precedent of the issuing of proposed findings by arbiters in Scotland, they are prepared to send to the local authority and to the person who appears at the inquiry a copy of the Order as prepared to be confirmed, giving them an opportunity of making a written representation within 14 days. It must be clearly understood that there is no intention to hold a further inquiry, and that any representation must be made in writing to the Department.

Mr. MacROBERT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 8, at the end, to insert the words:
and shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard if they so desire.
I am obliged to the Secretary of State for the very considerable concession that he has made. With one exception, its form is entirely satisfactory to me personally, and I hope will be to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that his Amendment is based on the precedent of the arbitration procedure in Scotland. I accept that view, and I Should not want anything different. In Scotland, when an arbiter makes an award, he issues his proposed findings, and allows the parties to make representations. Those representations are, of course, made in writing, and, so far, I am in agreement with the Amendment; but, after the representations are made, the parties are heard on the representations. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I am sure hon. Members behind him will agree, no arbiter in Scotland could safely decline to hear the parties on their representations, and we know that awards have been upset on account of arbiters refusing to hear the parties.
That is the rule laid down by the authorities in regard to ordinary arbitration, it being considered that it would be contrary to justice if any case were decided without hearing the parties. In regard to a Department of State, however, it was held some years ago that a Department may decide a matter without hearing the parties. I think that that procedure is entirely bad. It seems to me that to allow the parties to be heard does no harm to anyone. It allows a person aggrieved to be satisfied, because he is able to state his views to some representatives of the Department. After all, a written representation might not set forth just the particular point on which the Department had difficulty, and, when the man is allowed to go and state his exact view to the Department, things are made clear. I am sure that many hon. Members opposite, and on this side too, who have been concerned with appeals by insured persons, will know that they like to be heard. It would be intolerable if the Department decided matters without hearing the parties, and, accordingly, I am sure that hon. Members opposite will agree with the view that I am putting forward. I might remind them that in
the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act the words were inserted:
after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard.
I am bound to admit that that suggestion of mine was opposed by the Government, but it was carried by an overwhelming majority in the Committee, Members of all parties voting in favour of it. All I am asking is that you allow the parties interested to make representations, and these are to be in writing. In addition, the parties, if they so desire, should be allowed to be heard on the matter. It will make perfect a Clause which is very nearly perfect.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In this case, there has already been a hearing, and the analogy that the right hon. Gentleman has given from the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act is not a fair analogy at all. What he is seeking is to get a second hearing. We see no sense whatever in having a second hearing. While we were willing to meet him and his friends in taking the step we have done in our Amendment, we are not prepared to have a further hearing.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am lees anxious than anyone, from my past experience of administration, to hamper the Department. As I understand the case, it is true that the inquiry that is held is a public inquiry. The results of it are reported to the Department, which then comes to a decision. That decision may be quite contrary to the views of some of those with whom they have dealt, and the Government, under their Amendment, provide that objections can be made to it in writing. As a matter of practical administration, I really cannot see why, in addition to the written representations, which may be fully considered or not, it is any great disadvantage in the good working of schemes of this kind that representatives of the Department should receive individual representations. It will not interfere in any way with the decision that the Department comes to. They will not be forced to deviate from their view if they think that is the proper view. I think it would be of the utmost advantage to the Department itself that it should stretch this point and receive the representations. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The Government would have been prepared to consider this Amendment to the proposed Amendment much more sympathetically if any reason had been advanced why a hearing upon the matters with which the Clause deals should be included. Under the procedure prescribed by the First Schedule, in every case where objection is taken to the Order proposed, the parties interested have an opportunity of putting before the commissioner appointed to inquire into any matters affecting them, or affecting the scheme generally, and, where objection is taken, the Department shall, before confirming the Order, cause a public local inquiry to be held and consider any objections, and a report is to be made. It is true that following upon that report the Department issues a draft Order, but what is to be gained by a further hearing upon the draft Order? It is there that I think the analogy drawn upon by the right hon. and learned Gentleman breaks down.
In an arbitration, of course, the parties must be heard. It is a very common thing for an arbiter to issue his proposed findings, which correspond to a draft Order, but I do not think it can be said that an arbiter is bound to have a second hearing upon a draft finding. It is true that it is common practice that the parties may make representations to the arbiter before his proposed findings assume finality, but there is no rule of common law which requires an arbiter to grant a second hearing upon the draft findings which he has issued with a view to written representations being made. If it could reasonably be alleged that any purpose could be served by a second hearing which cannot be served by the first hearing which will take place under the Bill, there might be something to be said for the Amendment, but a second hearing would inevitably lead to delay in these vital matters, and that is a thing which everyone interested in the Bill is anxious to avoid. Accordingly, I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be willing not to press the Amendment further.

Mr. SKELTON: I could quite understand the Lord Advocate's argument if it was that after the draft Order there were to be no further representations of any sort, but I do not think it is a sound position for the Department to take up
vis a vis the citizens that there may be written representations on the draft Order but no oral representations. The Lord Advocate asked for any reason why oral representations should be allowed as well as written. I think the reason is very obvious and simple. It is that, when something is being done which individual citizens think is detrimental to their own interests and which they feel is a grievance and means hardship, they very much prefer to have an opportunity themselves of stating the actual points to a Department rather than being forced to do it in writing. I should have thought this addition to the Government Amendment would really make for easy working, and I am sure that view will commend itself without exception to all parties in the House. Everybody who has had to deal in any capacity with people who think they are being hardly treated knows perfectly well how different the situation becomes when one has had a full opportunity of coming face to face with the oppressor and putting one's views direct to him instead of doing it merely in writing.
I think this is just one of those matters in which a rather wider point of view and appreciation of the general view of the citizen in regard to public Departments would enable the Government to see that this would be an improvement and would make the Act run more smoothly in operation and avoid a great deal of trouble and feeling on the part of individual citizens that he is being hardly dealt with. It is all very well to say that the Department have already had an inquiry and that the objectors have had a full opportunity. That view was stated by the Under-Secretary, but I cannot say that I agree with him. What will happen is that you will have a public inquiry by an independent person appointed by the Department and the results handed to the Department. Thereafter, the Department makes a decision, but there has been no opportunity yet of quarrelling with the decision of the Department. That situation is admitted in the Government Amendment when it demands written representations. The individual householder and citizen who may have a grievance has no opportunity, after the general line of the
decision is known, of coming face to face with the Department and putting his views before it. I greatly respect, as many people in Scotland do, the practical shrewdness and common sense of the Secretary of State. I hope I may say that without offence. I think this is just one of those small matters where, if he looks at it from the point of view of the citizen, he will feel that, if he allows the citizen to come face to face with the Department and state his objection to a decision, now known for the first time, by word of mouth instead of only by writing, he will very much ease the administrative situation which will arise from the passage of this Bill. I do ask him to consider this matter favourably, not at some distant date, but now, and to let the House know that his consideration has resulted in a favourable decision.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Compulsory Purchase Orders.)

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 40, line 26, at the end, to insert the words:
and
(iii) The arbiter shall not take into account any building erected, or any improvement or alteration made, or any interest in land created after the date of the publication of the compulsory purchase order if, in the opinion of the arbiter, the erection of the building, or the making of the improvement or alteration, or the creation of the interest in respect of which a claim is made was not reasonably necessary and was carried out with a view to obtaining or increasing compensation.
This Amendment has been incorporated from the English Bill and follows the precedent contained in a number of local Acts. It secures that a person is not entitled to include improvements or to create a new interest after the publication of the Order merely for the purpose of increasing the compensation payable by the local authority. On the other hand, if the improvements are carried out in good faith, where they have been arranged before, the arbiter shall take them into account.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 40, line 32, after the word "health," to insert the words:
other than those to which sub-paragraph (b) hereof applies;
(b) the dwelling-houses or other premises, if any, in the clearance or improvement area erected after the passing of this Act which are injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets.
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 12, page 10, line 24. A compulsory purchase order must specify the buildings erected after the passing of the Act which are injurious or dangerous to health by reason of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 41, line 33, to leave out the word "and."
This Amendment is consequential on the addition of the further proviso to proviso 3 in paragraph 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 41, line 38, at the end to insert the words:
(iv) before confirming the order the Department shall send to the local authority and to every person who, having given notice to the Department of his objection to the order, appeared at the public local inquiry in support of his objection a copy of the order as proposed to be confirmed with an intimation that any representations in writing with respect thereto may be made to the Department within fourteen days after the date on which a copy has been sent, and before confirming the order the Department shall consider any such representations received.
This Amendment is similar to the Amendment to the Schedule on page 39, line 23.

Amendment agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Minor and consequential Amendments of the Principal Act.)

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 47, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
Section 103 In the proviso to Sub-Section (2), for the words "special case," there shall be substituted the words "stated case.
It will be remembered that in Committee the Government, after hearing arguments from all quarters, agreed that on Report this necessary Amendment should be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 47, column 2, to leave out lines 17 to 20, and to insert instead thereof the words:
The words 'Part I of' shall be omitted; after the words 'with respect to which' there shall be inserted the words 'a clearance order, a demolition order, or'; and for the words 'under this Act or under any scheme made under this Act or any enactment repealed by this Act' there shall be substituted the words 'under any enactment relating to the housing of the working classes or to prevent possession being obtained of a house for the purpose of securing compliance with any bye-laws made for the prevention of overcrowding.'

Major ELLIOT: I do not think it will be unreasonable to ask the Under-Secretary of State to give an explanation of the very complicated Amendment which has just been read to the House.

Mr. JOHNSTON: This particular Amendment of Section 112 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, is to make it clear that the Rent Restrictions Acts shall not prevent possession being obtained for the purpose of giving effect to a clearance order or a demolition order or for the purpose of preventing overcrowding. It will be remembered that this point was pretty adequately discussed in the Standing Committee, and, if I recollect aright, the Amendment to the Bill itself was agreed to without a Division.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The discussions which have taken place since the Bill was introduced have shown that in its main structure the Bill has generally been acceptable to Members of the House, and also to the local authorities whose duty it will be to operate its provisions. A number of suggestions have been put forward from all sides of the House for the amendment and improvement of the Bill. In view of the Amendments which have been agreed to, it will, I think, be generally recognised that the
Government have met, to a very large extent, the representations which have been made from the other side of the House. As representing the Government, I want to take this opportunity of thanking Members in all parts of the House for the assistance they have given by putting forward Amendments, and for the friendly spirit in which the Amendments have been discussed. The Bill, in the main, however, so far as the procedure proposed for dealing with slum areas and individual insanitary houses is concerned, remains substantially as it was when it was introduced. It is accordingly unnecessary for me to speak at length upon the provisions of the Bill, as they have already been explained to the House during the Second Reading of the Bill by myself and by my colleagues who have taken part in the discussions.
So far as the local authorities are concerned, there has been a good deal of doubt in their minds as to whether the financial terms offered by the Bill would, in practice, prove as favourable to them as the present 50 per cent. grant. As the result of explanations which have been given from time to time and the White Paper issued during the Committee stage, I hope that a good deal of the misapprehension with respect to the application and the operation of the new unit grants has been removed. I am satisfied that the terms of the new grant are much more favourable to the local authorities than the terms of the present grant, and that in practice it will be found that they are exceedingly generous. As I stated on the Second Reading, they are so designed as to offer the greatest inducement to local authorities to erect the larger-sized houses, which are so badly needed in Scotland for the rehousing of large families.
As was stated on the Second Reading, the Bill is an attempt to simplify and to expedite the procedure whereby the Congested areas of our large cities and the scattered uninhabitable houses of our smaller towns and villages will be done away with, and healthy new houses provided in their stead. I feel sure that I shall have the general approval of all parties in the House in making a strong appeal to the local authorities that they should at once proceed actively to put their powers into operation, and to commence the erection of the houses which
will help to wipe away the reproach which has for so long rested upon Scottish housing. I hope that in considering the matter the local authorities will not overlook the urgent need for expedition, and that, so far as the building trade is concerned, the large number of workpeople at present unemployed will be considerably reduced.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure that we shall sympathise with the desire of the Secretary of State for Scotland that the local authorities should embark upon their task with the utmost expedition and that the standing reproach to Scotland of its dreadful slum conditions may be removed as soon as possible. He said that it was hoped that the local authorities would press forward the provisions of the Measure with the utmost expedition. I might say that, after all, the local authorities have had to wait a considerable time for the production and passing of this Measure. I agree that it was necessary for the Secretary of State to look closely into the matter, and I think that we cannot complain that the Bill has been unduly delayed in its passage through the House. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State time taken the opportunity of thanking all sections of the House for their assistance both in the letter and in the spirit in the task which he has undertaken, and, on behalf of the Opposition, I beg to acknowledge that tribute which he has paid, at least as far as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen with whom I am associated are concerned.
Will the Bill succeed in the task which the Secretary of State has set it? The right hon. Gentleman is more confident than usual. We have often heard him say that he will examine the subject with the greatest care, will look very closely into the matter, will give it his very careful consideration: I suggest that he Should have used one of his well-known phrases this evening. We do not propose to divide against the Bill. The task before us is too grave for carping criticism, and a review of the work will come a year hence when we examine the programme launched under the Bill and examine it in relation to the housing needs of Scotland. It will not be enough if a considerable number of houses are transferred from the Wheatley and Chamberlain Acts to reappear under the Adamson Act. The Bill must provide a
substantial new addition to the houses of Scotland if it is to secure a more speedy dealing with the problem which we are now discussing. It may succeed in doing that, and the Secretary of State will believe me when I say that we on this side will be more than thankful to see his most confident predictions fulfilled and our utmost misgivings proved illusory.
The position is grave enough. The Report of the Department of Health for Scotland indicates the nature of the problem before us. It is not possible for us in Scotland to call ourselves civilised as long as these conditions exist. For a State to call itself civilised when children are kept awake by vermin is not a proper use of the word "civilised." A State which allows walls to be built in front of windows so that it is impossible to see the light of day, where people have to burn gas throughout the whole 24 hours, is not sensible let alone civilised. If we can remove these reproaches we shall have done a great deal, but these great evils cannot be remedied by State action alone. In many ways the housing conditions in England are an example to us in Scotland. They have succeeded in building faster and better houses, and the great mass of rookeries which deface Scotland have no parallel in England. The hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) has said that the proportion of our population living in single-roomed houses is greater than that in the mining and industrial areas of England. In all these matters we must remember that what is improving and saving the situation in England is the great programme of unassisted houses which she is carrying out, and unless we can in some way get this assistance into our housing problem it will lag behind that of England in the solution.
The debates on the housing problem in England showed the astonishing fact, which is not generally recognised, that not merely in slum clearance but in ordinary municipal housing local authorities in Scotland are doing much more than their opposite numbers in England. In the matter of slum clearances we are doing much more than local authorities in England. In local authority houses England is only building between 50,000 and 60,000 per year, and even at our reduced rate we are building 10,000
houses a year, which is equivalent to about 80,000 houses in England. But in England they are building over 200,000 houses a year. How is the difference made up? It is made up from unassisted houses and private enterprise houses. Every step we take in Scotland to make the position of private enterprise more difficult and militate against the security of money invested in houses as against money invested in other forms of investment, actually and deliberately injures the people of Scotland and defers the day when our people will be as well housed as the people in England. We must take these things into account. The fall in our housing programme to 10,000 houses a year is said to be due to the reduction in the subsidy. If that is so the maintenance of the subsidy would have helped to arrest that fall and even help to increase the number under construction. That has not yet happened. It may be about to happen, but any increase in local authority houses shows no sign of bringing the municipal housing programme to anything like 20,000 houses a year, which was previously the order of the day.
The fall in municipal housing began before there was any suggestion of a reduction in the subsidy. It was due to the weight of finance pressing upon local authorities and making them more and more dubious of undertaking fresh responsibilities. This is likely to continue; and we see this by the position in England, where local authorities which are prosperous, which have a low figure of unemployment, not merely lower than any in Scotland but actually lower than the pre-War figure of unemployment, can only produce a rate of municipal housing less than our present reduced programme in Scotland. What is likely, therefore, to happen to local authorities in Scotland heavily burdened with debt, with strained finances due to a long continued depression, and who look gravely to the future. What is the prospect of doubling the municipal housing programme at present in operation? We must look at these matters in the full light of reality, and it is certain that the depression which is weighing upon local authorities and leading, amongst other things, to a reduction in the housing programme is not going to be dispelled merely by the provisions of this
Bill. It may do a great deal but I do not think it is going to do as much as its supporters believe.
The smaller houses, which are presumably to be occupied by the poorest people, are not to be provided under this Bill at all but will have to be provided under the Wheatley Act. No additional inducement is being given to provide the smaller houses, the demand for which is so repeatedly made by many sections of the people in Scotland, and has been reiterated this evening by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) who represents one of the worst constituencies in Scotland so far as housing is concerned. For the smaller houses, no improvement is to be found in this Bill. Smaller houses have to be provided in the future, as in the past, by an Act which has stood on the Statute Book for four or five years. For the larger houses, a substantially greater grant is given under this Bill.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) delivered a speech on the Second Reading of the Bill which seemed to touch the matter very closely. He pointed out that the question of income was paramount in the homes of the people, and that while depression in trade existed, while the shortage of money existed, to bring a man and his family from a smaller house to a larger house might mean an actual injury to health, because it meant bringing him from circumstances in which he could keep warm and the family could get food, into circumstances where there would be greater difficulty in keeping warm and where the money which had been previously spent upon food would have to be spent upon other social needs. It is very necessary to remember these facts. It is also necessary to remember that we cannot treat housing alone and take it out of relation to the general social life of the citizen. The effects of industrial depression, the effects of the higher rating burdens which are the inevitable result of many of these housing developments, weigh upon the industry of Scotland. To that extent we retard that re-development of Scotland as a healthy economic unit which must be the final way by which we can get rid of the slums and of other social problems with which we are confronted.
The difficulty with which Scotland is confronted and with which the administration in Scotland is confronted are grave enough, and none would wish to minimise their gravity. Those of us who hold positions of trust in Scotland realise well enough that the desire of the Secretary of State and his colleagues has been to improve the conditions of the people and to make a genuine step forward, but they have still a long way to go before the housing programme in Scotland comes up to what it has been. If the right hon. Gentleman can take the steps necessary to bring up the housing of Scotland to the 20,000 programme, he will have made a very considerable advance. We shall see whether the new Measure will do anything to bring the programme of housing in Scotland up to that figure. Meanwhile, we say that we wish you well. Go ahead. Administer the Act, so long as its administration lies in your power, and when we come into power we shall do our utmost to administer the Act well. When we come into office next year.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—Yes, and we have to present the Estimates, we shall be reviewing the progress which this Act has made. I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that we shall not seek to repeal his Act. We shall not seek to sweep it away, but we shall be more than willing to use any engine or any weapon which he leaves to us to carry out the great task that lies before us.
10.0 p.m.
The difficulties of housing in Scotland are not yet solved. This Bill does not do as much as the House had hoped when it was introduced. The White Paper shows quite clearly that many other Acts had to be brought in to supplement the deficiencies of this Bill which have been revealed during its passage through the House. At the same time, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary have, as we truly believe, worn away the Treasury carpet by their repeated visits to that grim building until, as the Under-Secretary said, in a, vivid phrase, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ordered the cat's milk to be taken in when he saw them coming. While we are grateful for what the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have done, we realise that housing in Scotland will not be dealt with as we had
hoped by this Measure. There is a great legacy of dirt, disease and death still to be removed by future Administrations. Let us hope that future Administrations, of whatever political complexion, will succeed in removing that legacy, so that we can hold up our heads in Scotland and not be known as the place where the rats bite the babies in their beds.

Mr. E. BROWN: Members who sit for areas in Scotland where the slum problem is grave have eagerly looked forward to this Bill dealing with slum clearance, and we are glad to get to the Third Reading stage of the Bill, whatever oar opinions may be about the scope of the Bill or its imaginativeness, because everyone wants to see far more rapid progress made in the demolition and replacement of the slums with decent houses for the people. We are glad that we have got out of the period of consideration, of careful consideration and of active consideration to the Third Reading of the Measure. The Bill falls into three parts. The first is the machinery part, and I think it is a great advance in this kind of legislation to get a clear distinction drawn between areas that may be improved and areas where improvement is not possible. That will be of great use to the local authorities. Whatever one may say by way of slogan before a Bill is brought in, a slogan has this limitation that when we have coined the slogan we have not solved the problem.
The two new ideas in the Bill are the new unit grant and the differential rents. I am bound to speak with caution in regard to the effect of these new arrangements. In regard to the first, we have been concerned with two problems. In the first place, we saw the likely effect of the Bill upon present programmes, like that of the St. Leonards scheme in Edinburgh, in actual operation by the local authorities concerned. Then we were concerned, especially those who sit for areas where there are projected clearance schemes to come when those now under way are completed, as to what was likely to be the effect of the new financial arrangements upon those schemes. I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the Scottish local authorities for the way in which they discussed with hon. Members and with the Government
the financial arrangements. Having read most of the documents sent by the English local authorities in respect of the English Housing Bill, I must say that the Scottish Board of Health have been better served by the Scottish local authorities in regard to accurate estimates than the Minister of Health has been served by the English local authorities.
There can be no doubt that the Bill as it stands now is a great improvement upon the original proposals. I hope that the new unit grant will fulfil the highest hopes of those who framed the Bill, but I am bound to say that I do not think it really goes to the root of the slum problem, namely, the putting of a house where people want it, at a rent that they can afford to pay, and for those who have the smallest incomes among the workers. That is my opinion, and I wish I could say otherwise. Having said that, I welcome the Bill, and I hope that the unit grant in the form in which it appears in the Bill will be an immense success in regard to the present schemes and those that are to come. With regard to the differential rents, I am by no means assured that they will work out as happily or as smoothly as the Government itself think.
I do not wish to detain the House long, but I think that all Scottish Members, while congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate on having successfully piloted the Bill through the House, will like to pay a special tribute to the patience, the ability, and the hard labours of the Under-Secretary of State in connection with this Bill. I am quite sure that will be the wish of every Member who has taken part in the discussion.
As far as slums are concerned, they are a curse to civilisation. They prevent full civilisation. There is no nation which is civilised in the fullest sense of the word which does not give every man, woman and child living within its ambit a full opportunity for the exercise of every native creative faculty which that man, woman or child possesses; and
cabin'd, cribb'd, and confin'd
as these people are, there are few things which can more assist the well-being of our peoples than dealing with those horrible slum-ridden dens. In so far as
this is a contribution, although not as wide as we might want, to the purpose of ridding the land of slums, we all heartily welcome the Third Reading and congratulate the Government on having got to this point.

Dr. FOAGAN: May I be permitted to add a word of congratulation to the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland for producing what, in the opinion of some of us, is easily the best Measure which this Government has so far been able to produce? This Bill commends itself on these grounds. The simplification of machinery will enable local authorities, should they so wish, to proceed at a more rapid rate with the demolition of slums and with an attempt to deal with overcrowding. In my opinion, the essential good point about this Measure is that an effort is now at last definitely being made to deal with what is worse than slum conditions—overcrowding. Overcrowding in Scotland is incomparably worse than in England, and the reason why we have so much overcrowding in Scotland is that up to now the average house in Scotland has been either a single-apartment house or a room and kitchen—a two-roomed house. I regret that hon. Members opposite should have, in a sense, resisted the endeavour of this Measure to prevent the building of two-apartment houses, because, if the old 50–50 basis had been permitted to remain, it would have enabled local authorities to go on building a large percentage of those two-apartment houses which we do not wish to see built.
The figures of overcrowding relating to one and two-apartment houses are very interesting. There are 98 per cent. of those living more than four to a room who are living in either one or two-roomed houses; of those living more than three to a room, 90 per cent. are housed in either one or two-roomed houses; and of those living more than two to a room, 77 per cent. are in one or two-roomed houses. A cause of over-crowding in Scotland has been the building in former years of one and two-roomed houses, and this Measure, by giving local authorities a smaller financial grant for the two-apartment house, and a larger financial grant-in-aid for houses of more than two apartments, is definitely holding out to local authorities
the encouragement which they seem to require to build houses of a right size.
Another point worth mentioning is that here for the first time the child has been recognised as a person of importance. There were attempts in former years in Glasgow to deal with overcrowding by affixing on the door of single-apartment houses a ticket stating, so many hundred or thousand cubic feet, three and a-half or two and a-half persons; and a child under 10 years of age counted as the half. We must realise that we have progressed very considerably since those days. In 1862 an Act of Parliament permitted local authorities to build houses with a capacity of only 750 cubic feet per room. Here in this Measure we are regarding the child as an adult for grant-earning purposes, and that is a step in the right direction.
Another important benefit is that this Measure compels local authorities to face up to the facts of the situation. There is to be a periodical survey at once, then another three years from now, and thereafter one every five years. In the past, local authorities have been content to rely on old statistics. We are told that a finding of the Royal Commission 40 years ago revealed a certain lack of housing accommodation. Now we have a periodic survey, and, more important still, local authorities are compelled under this Measure to adopt a standard beyond which they must not allow houses to be occupied. I do not know that it has yet been pointed out that, the more stringent the local authority makes this standard, the bigger the grant which it will be able to earn in an improvement area. If they fix a standard of two persons to a room, rather than the existing standard for Scotland, which is three, it will be possible for them to earn a bigger unit grant for dealing with their improvement areas.
An hon. friend sitting on the benches beside me here suggested on the Second Reading of this Bill that it was not going to the root cause of the housing problem in Scotland. I disagree with my friend on that point. Local authorities by this Measure are getting greater financial assistance from the State. Take the City of Glasgow, where a rate of 1d. in the £ brings in a sum of £45,000. If the Corporation of Glasgow contribute merely the £4 10s. per house which is the
minimum, they can for an increase of 1d. on the rate deal with 10,000 houses. If, however, they maintain their former contribution, somewhere about £7 10s. per house, they will be enabled to let a house at a rental some 1s. 6d. per week lower than they are able to do under the present scheme. That is a consideration. Not only that; if the local authority choose to use the powers which are already in their possession they can provide not merely a house but a fair amount of furniture—cupboards, beds and so on. With a reduced rental of 1s. 6d., 2s. or 2s. 6d., in Glasgow and in the larger cities, it will be possible under this Act to provide for a family of five people a house to let at a rental of somewhere about 5s. or 5s. 6d. per week. That is better than they have been able to do in the past, and I say, to those very people who have not been provided for by former Acts of Parliament, that this Measure is at last giving great benefits by bringing to their aid all the powers of local authorities.
We are no doubt right in congratulating ourselves in Scotland that our local authorities have been less backward than the English local authorities in dealing with slum clearance, but let us use the term "less backward" rather than say that we in Scotland have been more successful. We have in Scotland housing accommodation which, had the authorities been in earnest in former years, would not be existing at the present time. We must ask ourselves why it is that former measures were not used. Was the financial assistance not sufficient? Was the machinery too cumbrous? This Measure simplifies the machinery, and increases the financial assistance. It seems to me that this Measure is at last offering a chance to the local authorities of Scotland to deal with the housing problem themselves, and if, in spite of this Measure, five years from now we find that conditions, have not materially improved, then it will remain for the Government to step over the heads of the local authorities and do what some of us think ought to have been done before now—conduct a large national housing Department and build houses wherever they are required.
One could cite instances in Scotland of towns and country areas where no attempt has been made to deal with the housing problem. I regret to say that my constituency some three years ago decided to build no more houses, in spite of the medical officer having reported a great shortage of houses. I am glad to have the assurance of the Secretary for Scotland that he intends to use powers never used by his predecessors in order to compel local authorities to make use of the powers conferred on them by this Bill, and thus materially to contribute to the improvement of the housing condition in their area. This Bill has met with very little opposition from any side of the Committee or House. It is refreshing to believe that here all patties are anxious to remove what is, after all, the greatest curse in Scotland. I hope that the local authorities will follow the example of Parliament and really apply themselves to the task of bringing housing standards in Scotland a little nearer to what they ought to be.

Major COLVILLE: I trust that this Bill will prove a real step forward in the direction of dealing with slum clearance, but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without saying that I regret very much that the Government did not see their way to leave the 50–50 provisions of the Chamberlain Act as an alternative. I say that because it has become evident, during the passage of the Bill, that it will not deal effectively with the case of the small house and the small family, which is left to be dealt with by the Wheatley Act. In one of the most progressive local authorities in the country in dealing with slum clearance, namely, the Corporation of Edinburgh, the question of the small family has been found to be very important. It has been found that on the average the number of persons per house displaced and rehoused under housing schemes was no greater than 3.5 in the City of Edinburgh. The reason is that in that district it is a question rather of overcrowding houses on to spaces rather than overcrowding of persons into houses.
All the time that Edinburgh was dealing with this question the Wheatley Act was on the Statute Book. They were entitled to use it if they chose. But they chose to use the Chamberlain Act with
its 50–50 provision. Edinburgh has made great progress. It has dealt with or is dealing with 12,500 persons in 3,484 houses. By way of comparison I would mention that in England, in a comparable period, only 15,000 houses dealing with 74,000 persons have been erected. I know that we in Scotland have leeway to make up, and I want to see it made up. But we must bear in mind that certain local authorities, while that Wheatley Act was available for them, preferred to make use of the Chamberlain Act. That is why I am sorry that the Government did not see their way to leave the Chamberlain Act, with its 50–50 principle, as an alternative for the authorities that may wish to make use of it. There is another reason. Building costs are now as low as they are likely to be. It is said that there will be a tendency to rise. If building is carried out on a large scale and costs rise, the local authorities have now not got the powers that they had formerly to share that cost equally with the State on the 50–50 principle.
There is another point in connection with this Bill to which I would call attention, but here I must walk delicately or I may find myself out of order. I have always expressed strong views about the use of British materials in housing schemes. There is no mention of this matter in the Bill, but I understand that, by an administrative arrangement, the Department from time to time circularises local authorities on the subject of the use of British materials in housing schemes. I sincerely hope that the Government will bear in mind that house-building has an important aspect as far as employment is concerned. If they are correct in believing that this Bill will result in a great house-building programme—and though we may have our doubts, we trust that they will prove to be correct in that belief—it is to be hoped that the market so created will be reserved, as far as possible, for the home worker and the home producer. I hope that the strongest action possible will be taken by the Department to keep in touch with the local authorities on this question and to urge the use of British materials. It is within my knowledge that large quantities of foreign joinery work and baths and other materials are being used in building in this country. I stress this point because
I believe it to be of the greatest importance at a time when there is grave unemployment in this country and when we have tradesmen of our own out of employment who make these articles which are now being imported from abroad. I trust that this Measure will prove a step forward in regard to housing in Scotland, and if, as I say, we have our doubts as to its results we have throughout all stages of the Bill tried to make it a better Bill. But I believe that it would be a better Bill still if the Government had not cancelled the provisions of the Chamberlain Act as far as the "50–50" principle is concerned.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Government have no reason to complain of the way in which this Bill has been dealt with during the various stages of its progress through the House of Commons. It has been subjected to close and critical analysis and examination at every stage and it has weathered the storm. There is no Bill which is not capable of being improved by discussion and this Bill has been improved, but, in its main principles and structure, it remains the Bill which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I do not take that very depressing view of the housing situation in Scotland taken by the former Under-Secretary. He said he would fain see the beginning of an upward tendency in house-building. He was so accustomed during the later period of his regime at the Scottish Office to seeing the figures fall, month by month, that he cannot but imagine that those figures, somehow or other, must still be falling. I am sure he will be delighted to know that for the first six months of this year the number of tenders approved for housing in Scotland has been beater than the number in either of the two previous years. In 1928 the number of tenders approved was 4,115, and in 1929 it was 4,169. For the first six months of this year the number is 5,123, in other words, about one-fifth or 20 per cent. more.
It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that many of the local authorities are in an extremely embarrassed financial position and many of them would look twice at any proposal in housing or anything else which necessitate the expenditure of fresh money. But ought it not to be the hon. and
gallant Gentleman's duty, as it is ours, to explain to these local authorities precisely what are the financial Clauses of this Bill, and what the Bill means? Let me explain to the House, by a method that I frequently use in discussing the matter with local authorities, where our financial arrangements will benefit the harassed local authorities. Take the three-apartment house. Under the present system—the fifty-fifty system, as it is called—the local authorities have borne an average lees of £8 per annum per house. They lose that, of course, on two, three or four-apartment houses alike. What grant are they going to get, and what are they going to lose under the terms of our Bill? Instead of getting only £8 from the State, as they are getting now, they will, for an average family of five persons in a three-apartment house, get five times £2 10s.; that is to say, £12 10s., as against £8. [Interruption.] I have taken the figure for 40 years as £8; the loss for 60 years is £7 5s. under the present system. I am taking strictly comparable figures, and I say that the loss under the present system on the average three-apartment house is £8 per annum, whereas the sum which they will get under our system is £12 10s.
That is not all. Not only will they get this £12 10s., but up to 15s. per head by way of compensation, if that compensation requires to be paid. Of course, it will not be 15s. in every case, but it will be an indeterminate sum up to 15s. as a maximum. There is therefore this £12 10s., plus a sum for compensation, as against £8 under the present system. Let me take the two-apartment house, which we have struggled to limit in number, partly because the number of two and single-apartment houses are already disproportionately large in Scotland. We have done our utmost by persuasion with the local authorities to prevent them building a larger number of these two-apartment houses. This type is a three-unit house under our system, and here again the loss is £8 at present. Under our system they will get £7 10s., and they will therefore lose 10s. They will gain £4 10s. for a three-apartment house, and lose 10s. on every two-apartment house. On a four-apartment house, which is a seven-unit house under our system, on
which at present the loss is £8 per annum, they will get £17 10s. per annum. Let me put it in another way. On a two-apartment house, the capital grant will work out at 37 per cent. On a three-apartment house, the capital grant from the State will work out at 56 per cent.; and on a four-apartment house the capital value of the grant will work out at no less than 74 per cent. per annum.
Every local authority which will pick out improvement areas where there are large families and build houses for those Large families can, I make bold to say, build those houses at the figures and let them at the rents of which the hon. Member for Renfrewshire has just spoken. There is at least one area in this country where the local authority has had accurate statistics compiled of the cost of disease. We have often heard about the cost of public health services and housing, but what about the cost of disease? For three years an accurate tally was kept of the extra costs to the public health of a particular slum—Roslin Place, Glasgow. What does Roslin Place cost the citizens of Glasgow for tuberculosis, infectious diseases and so on? The figures work out at over £1 per head per annum extra. A family of five living there costs £5 extra to the community which has permitted that slum to exist. I hope that when hon. Gentlemen are tallying up the costs of rehousing they will put on the debit side of the balance-sheet the cost of disease caused by slums.
I wish to add a word about another provision in the Bill which will enable local authorities to provide hostels for single persons. A strong Committee has been appointed to go over and criticise the plans and specifications which have been drawn up showing what can be done with a decently-planned hostel system. The Lord Provosts of the four chief cities in Scotland and their architects, the secretaries of the three large building unions, Sir Henry Keith, and the secretary of the National Housing and Town Planning Association, Sir William White, have been asked to join the Committee. I am going to venture on no prophecy, but the highest charge I have heard for a single room for a single person in one of these hostels, equipped with all the latest facilities, with electric lighting and heating, with a garden in the centre of
it, with decencies and comforts such as these poor people have never before known—the highest charge for such a house, everything included, is in the neighbourhood of 3s. 6d. a week. I have heard it put as low as 2s. 9d. [Interruption.] Yes, including lighting. [Interruption.] I do not know whether it is nearly right or not; but I am giving the best information I have got. If this hostel system pans out as we hope it will, and with the figures I have given of the comparative grants for houses under this Bill and the existing legislation, there is no local authority in Scotland, however harassed it may be financially, which cannot take a bold step forward in an attempt to rid our land of the great slum curse.
Every local authority with whom we have discussed the matter—with the possible exception of one; I am doubtful about that—is now convinced that under the terms of this Bill it will receive greater benefits and have greater opportunities for improving health and sanitation and housing the poorest of the poor in healthy homes. This legislation does not stand by itself, but it is a complement to the other legislation. It does not abolish the Wheatley Act; it is only a complement to it. It does not abolish the Rural Housing Act; in fact, it abolishes no other Act, and, so far as the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself are concerned, we propose to do everything we humanly can to urge all local authorities to use all their powers under all the Acts on the Statute Book. We believe that there are areas in our country districts with diseases, and housing hells which can only be tackled under the provisions of the Bill which I now commend to the House for a Third Reading.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) No. 2 BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [11th July], "That the Bill he now read a Second time."

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Orders of the Day — SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (EXPENSES) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS AND ASBESTOSIS) BILL [Lords].

(CHANGED FROM "WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL [Lords].)

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I should like to draw the attention of the House to a particular Clause in this Bill dealing with compensation. Under the Bill as it stands, it will be necessary, before a man can claim compensation that the presence of silica should be demonstrated in the lung; that, in addition to the presence of silica, there shall be definite fibrosis of the lung; and, in addition to that, that there should be temporary partial or total disablement. I am very much afraid that this Bill is not going to be the boon that many members of the community hoped that it would be. It is quite possible that when the Bill becomes an Act, and the Home Office has produced its scheme, many men in the industry may show evidence of silicosis, that is to say, the presence of silica in the lung, and perhaps a slight degree of Mitosis, and upon examination—either the initial examination of the periodical examination—a man in this condition, with slight fibrosis and silica, and yet not partially disabled, may be temporarily, and later permanently, suspended, on the suggestion that the industry is definitely harmful to his health and that it would be to his advantage to leave that particular industry.
It may happen that there are men who have been in the industry for 15 or 20 years, and who, in this examination, will show early stages of the disease, and
I am afraid that employers may use that as a means for getting rid of these people, of dismissing them from their work, in order to avoid future compensation. As long as they are in the industry, this disease is a progressive disease, and an employer would be quite justified in saying, "I have an employé who shows evidence of early silicosis and fibrosis. If I keep him in my employ for a few years longer, I shall be liable to pay him partial compensation, or perhaps total compensation"; and the employer may feel that it is his duty to dismiss the man from his work, partly to save the man's life, and partly to save the employer's pocket. I do not want that to happen, and I would ask the Under-Secretary if he will be so kind as to give me answers on two distinct and specific points.
In the first place, if a workman is compulsorily suspended before he has become disabled, will he be entitled to compensation? The second point is that men who have been for a long period of years in the industry should not be liable to be suspended except with their own consent. The first point, that a man should not be suspended without compensation if he has put in a certain number of years in the industry, is simply to protect the man from the employer wishing to dismiss him in order to avoid future compensation. I do not suggest what the compensation should be, except that I think that any man who has worked in an industry for 15 or 20 years should not be dismissed from that industry without some compensation, because at his age, which would be from 40 to 50, it is not easy for him to get other employment.
The second point is that a man who has been a long time in the industry, and has a certain amount of silicosis with a little fibrosis, has very little chance of getting another job, and he should not be compulsorily suspended except with his consent. They will simply say to this man, "You have a certain amount of silicosis. You have been in the industry 30 years. The longer you stay, the worse you will be, and in the course of time you will become partially or totally disabled, and, if you stay long enough, you will probably die of silicosis." The man might say, "I understand that, but I am now at
an age where I cannot get other employment, except, perhaps, at a very much reduced rate. I am prepared to take the risk. I am prepared to stay in the industry and go on until I am eligible for partial or complete compensation." As long as a man understands the risk, he should have the option and should not be thrown on the labour market with inadequate compensation, or none at all. I quite recognise that under the sandstone and refractories scheme special schemes are brought into play dealing with those industries. I hope the Under-Secretary may be able to assure the House that steps will be taken to ensure that these men are not unduly penalised or handicapped, and that everything will be done that is possible to safeguard them under the administration of the scheme.

Mr. HOFFMAN: I rise to draw attention to the fees that are now to be paid by the workers when they are found to be suffering from silicosis. I have had an opportunity this week-end of consulting with the grinders in Sheffield. They wish to bring to the notice of the Home Office a real case of hardship and they hope that, when the new scheme is taken into operation, their case will be borne in mind. If a worker goes to the certifying surgeon, he has to pay a fee of 5s. That is not complained of, but, if he is not satisfied with the decision and he has to go to the referee, he is charged a fee of three guineas. Suppose he has obtained compensation, goes on half pay for some time, and then dies, his widow has to pay another three guineas before she can obtain any compensation at all. I think that is iniquitous. Whether there is a post mortem examination or not, the poor widow has to find three guineas. The man has been off employment, maybe for three months, only on half pay, say 30s. a week or sometimes less, and obviously the widow is not in the position to pay this large sum. That is not all. I understand that she may sometimes have to wait for some months before she can get compensation. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration when making the new regulations.
There is one other point. Under the scheme of 1927, paragraph 2 states that if a workman, after having been certified to be totally disabled under the scheme,
re-engages in a process, he shall forfeit any right to further compensation. Instances have been brought to my notice where a workman may be sent off from his work or put into a sanatorium obviously suffering from tuberculosis as well as from silicosis. He is released as partly cured and goes back to work. The poor chap has got to do something, and he has no other occupation at his fingers' end. He goes back to work, and he is turned away again suffering from silicosis, and he is not entitled to compensation at all. I sincerely hope the Minister will take that into consideration when redrafting the regulations. The Bill as a whole is a very excellent piece of work, and we welcome it for the step forward which it represents. It certainly brings a larger measure of hope to those engaged in these occupations who are subject to this horrible disease. I do not want to vote against the Bill, but I hope sincerely the Minister will take these points into consideration.

Mr. HOPKIN: I wish to ask two questions. First, seeing that this subject of silicosis is of such concern to the miners of South Wales will the hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion that one of the two panels which he proposes to set up should be set up in Swansea? I need only remind him of the excellent work done in that area, particularly within a radius of 20 miles, where he will find dozens of cases which might be the subject of examination. The second point is, do I understand that as a complement to this Bill he will amend Order 975 which is the one applying to miners? In his speech in Committee he said:
On the Second Reading I called attention to the hardship of there being no compensation for partial incapacity, and I indicated that when the Bill was passed the Home Secretary would exercise his powers under Section 47 of the Act of 1925 to proceed by an amending Order to remove the anomaly. That is what we shall be compelled to do, and that is what we shall do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 10th July, 1930; col. 72.]
Do I understand that the two conditions which must now be complied with before any man can get any compensation at all will be amended? Under Clause 2 of the Order 975, a man must be in work from the 1st January, 1929, and under Clause
2 (a) it says that he must prove there was in the rock in which he works 50 per cent. of free silica. There is now such a body of evidence available at the Home Office that it is perfectly clear that men do die now from silicosis without there being a penny compensation, and after death their dependants get not a penny-piece either. I desire to know, does the Bill stand alone, excellent as it is, or is it to be supplemented by an amending order to Order 975?

Mr. HOLLINS: In Committee I was responsible for moving two Amendments. The second Amendment was to limit the amount of fees chargeable to a workman to a sum not exceeding 5s. Some assurances were given by the Under-Secretary that when the schemes were propounded for the various industries, some consideration would be given to the limitation of the charge made to the employés of the various industries. I can conceive a case where the employés may be charged considerably more than is provided by the present law in regard to silicosis. The present law is, that the workman who comes for an examination must pay a fee of 5s. to the certifying surgeon. When I moved my Amendment in Committee, I asked the Under-Secretary to give an assurance that there should be a limitation of the charge made upon the employé, but there is no safeguard in the Bill against an amount very much in excess of 5s. being chargeable to employés. It is conceivable that a workman may ask for an examination before a medical board, and, taking into consideration the cost of the medical board, and the fact that two or three medical men may have to give up time to consider the case, it may be said that the cost of this board is something like 30s. or 40s., and it is only right that the workman should pay a considerable portion of the cost of the examination. We feel that there should be a limit on the amount chargeable to the employé, and that it should not exceed 5s.
I withdrew my Amendment in Committee on the understanding that unless there were some words inserted in the Bill to cover that point, I and my hon. Friends would be compelled again to bring forward an Amendment to cover the position. I regret that such a proposal has not been brought forward by
the Under-Secretary of State, and although we have not put down an Amendment, we feel that we ought to be given an assurance by the Under-Secretary that the workpeople will be safeguarded and that the charge for medical examination shall not exceed 5s. I should like to have the assurance of the Under-Secretary that in any scheme fixed for an industry under this Bill the amount expected from the employé should not exceed 5s.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): With regard to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) in respect of the setting up of a panel at Swansea, I should like to say that, while I cannot give him any definite pledge as to a panel being set up at Swansea, we are not unmindful of the serious consequences and effects of silicosis in the South Wales area, and I can certainly give him an assurance that when we come to consider the setting up of those panels, Swansea will receive fair and reasonable consideration. He also made reference to the question of an amending Order, under Section 47 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, to remove certain anomalies to which I referred on the Second Reading of the Bill. I can assure him that such an amended Order will be introduced, that it will be framed after consultation with the various people, and that the facts which he mentioned in his speech will seriously be considered. In connection with the 50 per cent. silica, inquiries are now proceeding, and we expect to receive a report from the Medical Research Committee shortly.
11.0 p.m.
We had a very full and comprehensive discussion on the question of the payment of fees during the Committee stage, when I pointed out that in the opinion of the Government it was desirable that the question should be left to be dealt with in the rules and regulations which will have to be formulated by the Secretary of State. We have undertaken to appoint an advisory committee consisting of an equal number of employers and employés, with other suitable persons such as medical men and departmental representatives who have a full knowledge of the subject, and I gave an assurance in the Committee,
which hon. Members will find in the OFFICIAL RWORT of our sitting on the 10th July, in which I said that my right hon. Friend and I would use all the arguments we could to ensure that the fees paid, if paid at all, would not be in any way oppressive. In our opinion, it is much better to leave the question of fees for consultation.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Can the Under-Secretary give me an answer to the point I raised of the man who, on going back to his occupation, is deprived of compensation?

Mr. SHORT: It is somewhat difficult to answer that question at the moment, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the point will receive consideration. As to the points raised by the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), let me say that as far as I am aware there has been no complaint in connection with the various schemes in operation respecting dismissals for the causes he indicated. At the same time, it is possible under the powers of Section 47 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to cover the two points he had in mind. In fact, under existing schemes we have dealt with the two points he mentioned, and in connection with the schemes which will have to be set up under this Bill, in consequence of the amending Order to be issued under Section 47, we shall, of course, endeavour to meet the points he has put before the House.
As regards the first point, Section 47 provides that in any case where a workman, though not totally disabled, is found to be suffering from the disease to such a degree as to make it dangerous for him to continue work in the industry, he may be suspended, and that in such cases compensation shall be such as may be prescribed by the scheme. In pursuance of this power, provision has been made, both in the refractories and sandstone schemes that where a workman is suspended because it is dangerous for him to continue in the industry, although he has not yet reached the stage of disablement, he shall be entitled to compensation up to 50 per cent. of his average weekly earnings while he is seeking for employment, for a maximum period of three months. In this way we have sought to deal with the first point raised by the hon. Member.
As regards the second point, the refractories scheme contains a provision exempting from compulsory suspension, except on his written request, any workman who at the date of the commencement of the scheme had been employed in the industries for more than 20 years. The sandstone industry scheme also contains a somewhat similar provision, exempting a workman who has been employed in the same occupation, whether in that industry or not, for more than 20 years and has reached the age of 40 years. Therefore, it will be seen that, under Section 47, we have power to deal with the two points which my hon. Friend put to me. In these circumstances, I hope the House will now let me have the Bill.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I wish to congratulate the Under-Secretary on having made very many promises of consideration during the Committee stage, and to express my total astonishment that he has not done anything to improve the Bill, in spite of his promises.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (REGULATIONS).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that Regulation 25 of the National Health Insurance (Additional Benefits) Regulations, 1930, dated 18th June, 1930, be annulled.
The point to which I want to call the attention of the House and the reason why I am moving this Address, appear at the bottom of page 10 and the top of page 17 of the Regulations as issued on 18th June, 1930. That Regulation deals with a question of additional benefits for insured persons respecting ophthalmic treatment and the supply of optical glasses, and the portion to which I raise objection reads as follows:
Where a member has submitted himself to the examination of a medical practitioner under the scheme of a body or organisation which provides both ophthalmic examination and optical appliances, he shall not be entitled to obtain the appliance prescribed by such practitioner from an optician who is not associated with that body or organisation.
That may seem like Greek to some Members of this House, but it will not to those who are associated with approved societies, because they know exactly how this is going to work out. Under the present arrangements we have a body of qualified opticians which is known as the Joint Council of Qualified Opticians. They have been prescribing for some considerable time for members of approved societies, and to show exactly how the thing has worked out I should like to quote a paragraph from an article which appears in the National Insurance Gazette. This is not a journal devoted to the interests of this particular organization; it is a journal which deals with National Health Insurance matters in general, and this is what it says:
When Approved Societies decided to give ophthalmic benefits they found a state of affairs which can best be described as chaotic, but eventually they were able to make arrangements with a good class of sight testing opticians, members of the Joint Council of Qualified Opticians";
I am going to make the assertion that the arrangement which was entered into between the approved societies and this particular body has worked very satisfactorily indeed; there have been no complaints that I know of. But we find that another body has come along. It is the fact that whenever a member of the Qualified Opticians' Council examines a patient and finds that the case really requires surgical treatment, he immediately reports that to the approved society, and arrangements are then made for the patient to be examined by an ophthalmic surgeon. The ophthalmic surgeons have set up a board which is known as the National Ophthalmic Treatment Board, and they have taken on to that board certain selected firms who supply optical glasses. We find that they have come to the Ministry of Health and made a request that they should be given special privileges for that particular board.
This question was raised in 1928, when the National Health Insurance (Amendment) Act was before this House and before a Committee upstairs. It was then stated that there were various objections to making regulations approving this suggested arrangement on behalf of that particular board. In the first place the societies objected very much indeed, because the fees were far too high, but I understand that those fees have now been
reduced. Secondly, they were up against this problem: that although this board had been formed, those who were members of that board who could supply the optical glasses required were so few in number that it was not possible for them to meet the needs of the people requiring those glasses fitted for them. Then, again, it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that no one had any complaint whatever against the body which, was already carrying on this work, and therefore it was felt that there was no reason why special privileges should be given to that particular body.
The approved societies want to know why there should be this change-over. Certainly, a little time has elapsed since 1928, but still we are in the position that there has been no complaint with regard to this body which has been doing the work, and still we are up against the position that the number of people who can carry on this work is very small indeed. I have here a list of those who are attached to the particular body which I have mentioned, the National Ophthalmic Treatment Board. What do we find? That we have scattered here and there those who are able to supply these particular optical glasses. Altogether, throughout the United Kingdom, there are 30 firms, but 90 per cent. of these are in the hands of four firms only, who have branches scattered throughout the country, and if this Regulation is allowed to pass this House they will be the only people available to make up the glasses required by members of approved societies.
Let us glance at this for a moment. Take my own county of Lincolnshire, the second largest in acreage in the country. There are only three of these people in the whole of the county. Therefore, if a member of an approved society has to be examined by an ophthalmic surgeon he or she must go to the person belonging to this particular board that the surgeon says he or she must go to. What is the position going to be? On the other council which had been doing this work ever since these additional facts were brought into being, in that same county we have 49 available at any time and doing work about which no one has ever complained. In Scotland there are only three of these particular people;
in Wales only eight. And belonging to the joint council you have 4,000 members and 4,000 establishments capable of giving the glasses that are required.
I suggest to the Minister that it is not fair to bring in such a drastic change, buried in the midst of many new regulations that it may be desirable to make. Before any such action had been taken a round table conference ought to have been held so that the parties concerned, whether members or officials of approved societies, those who have in the past been supplying these glasses to the satisfaction of members of approved societies, and the doctors themselves, should have met, and there should have been some consultation with the officials of the Ministry and the Minister before a definite decision was come to on the matter. Here is a paragraph which precedes this new regulation:
A member shall be entitled to obtain optical appliances from any optician who is a member of an organisation of opticians for the time being recognised by his society.
then it goes on:
Any optician, not being a member of any such organisation, if the consent of the society has previously been obtained, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
That is a very wide provision, and it allows all sorts of people to come in and supply glasses. Below, we find this:
Provided that the Committee may require as a condition of payment of the whole or part of the cost of the provision of an appliance, that the member shall submit himself to an ophthalmic examination.
Then we get to a point to which I wish to raise objection. In the first place the Minister is making regulations which allow members a choice, and even something more than that; it allows them to go outside even the recognised bodies. Then we get, further on, this regulation which will not allow a person, simply because he has gone to an ophthalmic surgeon, to go to a member of this particular organisation that has been supplying glasses for so long. The position will be this: A member of an approved society comes along to a member of the organisation that has been supplying these glasses up to now, and the doctor, realising that the defect in the person's eyesight requires something more than the attention of a refractionist, says, "You must go to a surgeon." He is
reported back to the society and the society sends the person along to a surgeon. That surgeon cannot send the person back to have the prescription made up by the man who first called attention to the defect. He has to go to one of the members of this favoured board. It is distinctly unfair and the House ought not to allow this regulation to pass. I ask the Minister to agree that there shall be consultation before these regulations are made absolute and to take into account also the point that if it is right to give an insured person a free choice in the one case, it is equally right to give him a free choice in the other. I make this plea on behalf of members of approved societies who have expressed to me their dissatisfaction with these regulations. They say that they ought to have a free choice to go to qualified men and approved men. I am not here to defend quacks who may do harm to the eyesight of the people; I am here to defend the properly qualified man who has done the work well in the past and who ought to be given a reasonable chance to continue to supply glasses.

Mr. BIRD: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish to remind the Minister that if it had not been for the hearty co-operation of the approved societies, the Insurance Acts would have been very difficult to work. I also ask him to bear in mind the communications which, I understand, he has received from the approved societies pointing out their concern at this provision in the Regulations. My hon. Friend has referred to the General Council of Qualified Opticians, and the House may be interested to know that this is a body of opticians who have either passed the examination of the British Optical Association or the examination of the Worshipful Company of Spectacle-Makers—not examinations set by their own members, but examinations the papers for which have been set by ophthalmic surgeons in conjunction with the members of those two bodies. I think the papers are set by eight of their own members and six ophthalmic surgeons. Therefore, I think the House will agree that it is not an examination which anybody can pass. It is an examination which requires some years of careful study, There are in the
country 4,000 of these people who are qualified.
This other body referred to in these regulations, the National Ophthalmic Treatment Board, is quite a new board, and I should like to ask the Minister why he had not the pluck to put this title in the regulations. If he had done so hon. Members would have known where they stood, but as it is, I dare say that many of them, like myself, thought there were many boards which would have come under this provision. There is only the one. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary shakes hey bead, but I know that statement to be correct, and there are very few members of this body my hon. Friend has referred to his own county. I should like to refer to my county, Yorkshire. Whereas there are 305 qualified opticians, members of the qualified opticians body, there are only 15 or 16 members on the new board referred to in paragraph 2. I ask the Minister to withdraw this provision, and I support the proposal of my hon. Friend that we should have another conference about this matter, at which everybody interested in it, should be represented. I understand that this regulation was put in after the conference had finished, quite unknown to the general council of qualified opticians. It was not until the last minute that somebody found this provision mixed up in this great mass of regulations. If the Minister will now withdraw it, and give it further consideration, and give consideration to those who have helped the Insurance Acts, and to the question of the approved societies, he will be following a very wise course.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I still find it a little difficult to understand what all this is about. The hon. Members who moved and seconded this Prayer have been trying to ride two horses at once. It is not a very easy thing to do, and I am afraid that they have not succeeded. Are they defending the professional claims of the Joint Council, or are they concerned about the free choice of the approved societies? I should like to know which case I am to answer. No drastic changes have been made. All the arrangements for additional benefit used to be made in special schemes which had
to be approved by the Minister. Under the Insurance Act of 1924, as amended by the Act of 1928, they have to be dealt with by regulations. The Regulations which are now lying on the Table are Regulations concerning the whole field of additional benefits. Attention has been drawn to a particular section of these Regulations. One would imagine that these things sprang from somebody's brain without any consultation with anybody at all. We have heard from those benches defenders of the approved societies, but all these Regulations were only formulated after full consultation with the Approved Societies Consultative Council of the Ministry, and it is a little late in the day now for people advocating the claims of unmentioned approved societies to come to the House—[Interruption.] We have had no mention of the approved societies which the hon. Members have in mind.
We all Know that there has been for years two different schools of thought on this question of ophthalmic treatment. I can see them both represented here to-night—and I mention no names. There is what I may call the view of the medical profession—and again I mention no names—and there is the view expressed by the Joint Council. I am not concerned with conflicting professional interests. My concern is service to the members of the approved societies. It is my duty to hold the balance as fairly as I can, and to give the maximum of alternative opportunities for service to insured persons. That I claim is done in the Regulations which are now under discussion. One would assume, although the speech of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) referred to other ways of paying ophthalmic benefit, that there was some now method which was the only method. What is the truth about it? The truth is that under the Regulations any approved society is to be free to make its normal arrangements, if it is providing ophthalmic treatment, directly with a representative body of opticians, and in the vast majority of cases, that is the course which will be followed. The leading organisation of opticians is this Joint Council of Qualified Opticians, to which the hon. Member refers.
That will be the scheme which will apply, I imagine, to the vast majority of insured persons who are fortunate enough to be able to get ophthalmic treatment if they so desire. When I am told that there is an interference with the free choice of the insured person, I am bound to point out that under this scheme the member is free, but he is only free to go to any member of that organisation. It is true that be can, if he likes, make a fuss and get his society to enable him to go out, but the normal course is that if his society chooses this method then, apart from his taking special action on his own, his choice is limited to those who are members of this Joint Council. But that is not the only method. I will not go into details as to how that might be followed by the use of ophthalmic surgeons, but the Regulation also allows a society to arrange for examination in all cases by ophthalmic surgeons.
We come now to two other alternatives with a view to making it possible to get advice from ophthalmic surgeons and at the same time to provide that service with a minimum of cost. The British Medical Association have made two alternative schemes. In the first one they have prepared a list of medical practitioners who have had experience of dealing with ophthalmic cases and ace willing to test the sight of insured persons and prescribe glasses. In that first scheme the insured person, having got his prescription, can go to any qualified optician he chooses throughout, the length and breadth of the land. The second scheme is a combined scheme and is an arrangement between the medical profession on the one hand and—it is quite true—a body not representing a large number of firms, the Association of Dispensing Opticians, on the other hand, firms, I imagine, to which most Members of the House of Commons go when they have their prescriptions made up. They are the people who never prescribe, but who always make up prescriptions which come to them from ophthalmic surgeons. Under that combined scheme it is quite clear that you cannot have that free choice of optician that you do under other schemes. If you had the scheme would go to pieces. It is reasonable to say to an insured person, "If you wish to go to an ophthalmic surgeon, if you feel that your eyesight
needs highly skilled advice"—and that may be so in many cases—" then we have got to tell you that there are only a limited number of opticians to whom you can go to have your prescription made up." That does, in a way, interfere with the free choice of the insured person; but he acts with his eyes open. The insured person need not have this scheme unless he wants to.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that if the person does want examining by an ophthalmic surgeon he must come into this scheme? That is the point at issue. If he can go to an ophthalmic surgeon and be examined, and then go to his own optician and get the glasses, he has no complaint to make.

Mr. GREENWOOD: But surely the hon. Member is wrong. Provision is made in the scheme to maintain the right of the individual to go to the ophthalmic surgeon if he wants to do so.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: It does not say so here.

Mr. GREENWOOD: If my hon. Friend wit read the regulation he will see that a series of alternatives are provided leaving the insured person with a choice of schemes. Are we to rule out entirely what I believe is a sincere attempt made by the Minister of Pensions and the Society of Dispensing Opticians to provide a combined service? There is no compulsion to accept that service, and, if insured persons prefer it, they do so with their eyes open, and they have freedom of choice. There is no hardship in that. All we have to do is to maintain a fair balance between these two schools of thought. I am not prepared to accept entirely the medical view or the view of the Joint Council. While it is true that there may be many cases which may be attended to by the Joint Council there may be many other cases where skilled advice is imperative, but the two bodies will meet everybody's needs. The discussion to-night has not been about this particular subject at all, but it is one of the discussions which always takes place under the Health Insurance Acts between the interests concerned. I am not concerned with those interests but with the interests of the insured person, and we have tried in these regulations to give him the best possible service and a choice of opportunity.
I hope the House will not be so ill-advised as not to permit these regulations to go through, but will allow them to pass as provisional regulations designed for the benefit of insured persons.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have endeavoured but failed to reconcile myself to the regulations complained of in the Prayer. I should like to call the attention of the House to two or three points which must be borne in mind in this connection. When the National Health Insurance scheme was first established in 1911, it was laid down as almost a sacred promise, that the freedom of choice of the insured person should be inviolate, and every approved society, however small, has been determined that that principle shall be maintained. I would like to remind the Minister of Health quite respectfully that this is the first time that that principle is being assailed. Let me put the point as clearly as I can. I am probably compelled to be as much concerned about the interests of the insured person as any hon. Member of this House. There is now freedom of choice on the part of the insured person to go to either a panel practitioner or a dentist or chemist. There is also freedom of choice up to now for the insured person to choose his optician, but, by passing these regulations that freedom of choice for the insured person himself will be taken away. To provide that the approved society has freedom of choice under the scheme is not giving to the insured person personal freedom of choice. There are societies representing up to 3,000,000 insured persons. Let me ask how many members of a large society of that kind would have a say in deciding whether their society should adopt this scheme. The decision would naturally he taken in the central office of the approved society. Its members would not be consulted. This new scheme provides that the following practice shall be followed. The approved society, having adopted the scheme, will tell its members that, if they want ophthalmic treatment and advice, they must go to a specialist provided under the scheme. The specialist will then undertake his task for half-a-guinea, provided however that the insured person goes to the optician in league with the ophthalmic surgeon—

Dr. V. DAVIES: Do not say "in league."

Mr. DAVIES: In conjunction with the ophthalmic surgeon, I ought to say. The ophthalmic surgeon decides who the optician shall be—

Dr. MORGAN: No.

Mr. DAVIES: But I have a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis, try of Health to say that it is so. I think the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will agree that the scheme provides two things. If an approved society adopts the scheme, the ophthalmic surgeon will examine the insured person for a fee of half-a-guinea, provided always that the insured person goes to the optician chosen by the ophthalmic surgeon. If however the same insured person falls outside the scheme, then, by going to the very same ophthalmic surgeon, he will be compelled to pay a guinea, because he chooses his own optician. Can anybody say that such a scheme provides freedom of choice for the insured person? It does not. I speak as the secretary of a society that has fought strongly for freedom of choice for its members and not merely for the society.
It is all very well to say that you give freedom of choice to one of these huge approved societies in London with 3,000,000 insured persons. How can they determine freedom of choice for their members? They never hold a members' meeting; they never have a ballot; the whole decision is taken by two or three gentlemen may be at the head office. I do not blame them; probably they cannot do anything else.
I say, therefore, that it would be well if the Minister would take this part of the regulations back. From my knowledge of the regulations, this one is not imperative to the whole scheme; it is a very small part, and, in fact, the approved societies have gone on fairly well without this particular section already.
Most of my insured members are employés of co-operative societies. This scheme does not provide for a single insured person to have his prescription for glasses dispensed by co-operative societies' opticians anywhere in the country, and no co-operative society's optician will obviously ever be allowed to
dispense under this scheme. I say, therefore, that as a society of co-operative employés, we could not possibly operate a scheme of this kind. The Parliamentary Secretary appears astonished that I say that. The society of which I am secretary has 40,000 members, of whom about 35,000 are employed in co-operative societies. A considerable number of co-operative societies employ opticians of their own. Most of the employés go to the co-operative society's optician, but they do not get a chance under the scheme, and never will. Consequently I say the scheme is very unfair to approved societies, and I would ask the Minister once again seriously to consider taking back this part of the regulations, because they do for the first time, violate very strongly the principle of free choice for the insured person himself.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: The hon. Member has been arguing that under this scheme there is no free choice for the insured person. I say if this regulation is deleted, according to the Prayer, it will certainly take away whatever choice there is. What are the two schemes before the House? An insured person can go to an optician who is a member of this organisation and get his eyes tested, and he can get glasses for a fee of 15s. He can, under this scheme of a National Ophthalmic Treatment Board, go to a specially qualified medical man approved by eminent ophthalmic surgeons appointed by the Board, specially qualified to examine eyes for an inclusive fee of 18s., namely 10s. 6d. for the examination and 7s. 6d. for the glasses, as compared with 15s. which he paid under the other scheme. Surely you are not going to deprive the insured person of the right of choosing which of the two he prefers. If he prefers, for a fee of 3s. extra, to be examined by a duly qualified ophthalmic surgeon and have his glasses, why deprive him of the right of choice? There is a body of opticians who are modest people. They take the view that it is not their function to examine eyes, and I do not blame them. Modesty is a very good quality in every one. They are an important body of opticians. They say "Our function, which we intend to carry out, is to dispense the glasses which have been prescribed by those who are in our opinion better qualified than we are to
give an opinion." The Mover of the Motion wants to force this body of opticians to come into this organisation or, alternatively, to prevent them altogether from making a living. That is what it amounts to.
This Board is one that arose from circumstances. At one time a fee was charged which was considered excessive. It was reduced to what I suppose is regarded by everyone as a moderate fee for an expert examination of the eye, namely half a guinea. It gives absolutely free choice. The opticians who will dispense the glasses are qualified opticians. Let me read the instructions which the approved societies will issue to insured persons. It states:
Upon receiving an application for the benefit from a member the Society shall issue to him a form of letter setting out—

(i) particulars of any arrangements which the Society have made with any body or organisation for the provision of the benefit or any part thereof, and the steps to be taken by the member under those arrangements.
(ii) information as to any other method by which the member may obtain the benefit."

Surely you have a right of choice there for an insured person to take whichever of these methods he likes. He has perfect freedom under the regulations either to go to the optician or the doctor. During the discussions in 1928 on the additional regulations the then Minister of Health assured the House that the Ministry would at any rate see that this free choice which was embodied in the regulations was adhered to for all insured persons in the country. I hope the House is not going to deprive a large number of opticians of the opportunity of making a living.

Mr. T. LEWIS: I think there is a great deal of exaggeration upon this matter. I have looked at it very carefully, and at first blush I thought it was very much against the insured person, but on examination I have come to the conclusion that the insured person can, through his society, still have the right to choose. This is a conflict between the optician and the medical profession, who are undoubtedly

trying to get what advantage they can from this very lucrative business. It is the old story of the doctors and the Ministry. The doctors feel they want to be top dog if they can and want to draw the business to themselves. I believe the great bulk of the business is done to-day by the Joint Council of Qualified Opticians. At least 80 per cent. is done by that body and, under the existing regulations, will still he done. The Ministry are agreed to a scheme which will enable the few who wish to take advantage of the scheme prepared by the medical profession with, it is true, a very limited number of opticians to do so. The number under the scheme is very limited and for a long time to come will not supply the needs of those desiring ophthalmic treatment. Under the regulations, there is the right of the Societies to allow any member who desires to go to an optician or to an ophthalmic surgeon not connected with the body named. They have a right to do so and must make their own arrangements. There is a Clause as to the grant which can be allowed. My own organisation is not attached to either of the two bodies. My own opinion is that better treatment can be provided by the Joint Council than by any indiscriminate arrangement. I think the Ministry are doing all that they can, while bound by that very powerful medical profession which—

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Is it in order for an hon. Member to stroll about the Gangway?

Mr. T. LEWIS: Some hon. Members want something to do. I believe the Ministry have done all that they can to protect the interests of insured persons, and I think the House might very well allow the Order to go through.

Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that Regulation 25 of the National Health Insurance (Additional Benefits) Regulations, 1930, dated 18th June, 1930, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 144.

Division No. 434.]
AYES.
[11.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Bracken, B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Christie, J. A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Colville, Major D. J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Boyce, H. L.
Dixey, A. C.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Kinley, J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart



Llewellin, Major J. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Mr. Womersley and Mr. Bird.


Muirhead, A. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Herriotts, J.
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Quibell, D. F. K.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hoffman, P. C.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Arnott, John
Hollins, A.
Raynes, W. R.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hopkin, Daniel
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Horrabin, J. F.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Barr, James
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bellamy, Albert
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Romeril, H. G.


Benn, Rt. Hon.- Wedgwood
Johnston, Thomas
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Kennedy, Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Bowen, J. W.
Lang, Gordon
Sanders, W. S.


Brothers, M.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sawyer, G. F.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lathan, G.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Law, A (Rosendale)
Sherwood, G. H.


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Shield, George William


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shillaker, J. F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Charleton, H. C.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sinkinson, George


Clarke, J. S.
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Daggar, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Dallas, George
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dalton, Hugh
McElwee, A.
Sorensen, R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McEntee, V. L.
Sullivan, J.


Dickson, T.
McKinlay, A.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
McShane, John James
Thurtie, Ernest


Duncan, Charles
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Ede, James Chuter
Mansfield, W.
Tout, W. J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Marcus, M.
Townend, A. E.


Elmley, Viscount
Marley, J.
Vaughan, D. J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marshall, Fred
Walkden, A. G.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mathers, George
Hallace, H. W.


Gill, T. H.
Matters, L. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gossling, A. G.
Messer, Fred
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gould, F.
Middleton, G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morley, Ralph
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Muff, G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Harbord, A.
Murnin, Hugh
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Haycock, A. W.
Oldfield, J. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hayes, John Henry
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)



Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Wilfrid Paling.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjourned at Six Minutes after Twelve o'clock.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.